amber_delete_memory

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: soft-delete (reversible), idempotent (skips already-deleted), return values (`deleted_count`, `not_found` error code), requires active subscription, and not rate-limited. This covers safety and operational traits comprehensively.

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 brief yet comprehensive. It front-loads the main action and then lists constraints, behaviors, and return values in a logical order. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral traits (idempotent, reversible), error scenarios, prerequisites (active subscription), and rate limiting. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the distinction between `memory_id` and `memory_ids`, that at least one is required, and the max batch size of 100. This clarifies usage beyond the schema definitions.

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 it 'soft-delete one or more memories to the trash', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling `amber_delete_account` by explicitly noting not to use for account-level cleanup.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use (for account-level cleanup) and provides the alternative `amber_delete_account`. Also mentions reversibility via `amber_restore_memory`, giving clear usage context.

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