Delete multiple memories by their IDs in one batch, optionally specifying a reason for the deletion.
Delete multiple memories by id.
Args: ids: Memory IDs to delete reason: Optional tombstone reason (default "deleted")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / reasonAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Reason",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The term 'tombstone reason' suggests a soft delete, but the description simply says 'delete' without clarifying permanence, atomicity, or side effects. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if partial failures occur, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, using a clear 'Args:' format. It is efficient with no wasted words, but the informal docstring style and the inaccuracy regarding the default value slightly detract from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high number of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or whether the operation is atomic. For a batch delete, crucial details about partial success and idempotency are missing, making the description incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it labels 'ids' as 'Memory IDs' and 'reason' as an 'Optional tombstone reason'. However, it contradicts the schema by stating the default for 'reason' is 'deleted' when the schema has 'default: null'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more accurate and comprehensive parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple memories') and the key identifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from the singular 'memory_delete' sibling and other batch operations. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 30 sibling tools, including 'memory_delete' (singular) and various other batch operations, the description does not specify when this batch deletion is appropriate or preferable, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.