delete_finance_memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a destructive action (delete), but does not specify whether the deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, or what consequences it has on other data. More detail is needed for safe usage.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the action from the example, but overall it is efficient.

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 that there is no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. A delete operation would benefit from mentioning whether it succeeds silently or returns a confirmation, and any constraints on the memory_id format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only indirectly mentions the required parameter (memory_id) via 'by id' but does not explain the optional db_path parameter or provide any formatting or constraints. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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'), the resource ('finance memory by id'), and provides a concrete example use case ('when a correction is no longer true'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_finance_memories, write_finance_memory, and search_finance_memory.

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?

The description gives a specific scenario ('when a correction is no longer true') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, nor does it compare to alternatives like search_finance_memory for locating the correct id or list_finance_memories for viewing existing records.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.