memory.delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and, valuably, the idempotent success semantics: it returns {"status":"deleted"} even when no entry matched the ID. That non-obvious behavior is exactly what an agent needs before retrying.

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?

Two tight sentences: deletion + irreversibility first, then edge-case return behavior, then usage scope. No filler and no redundancy with the title.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the parameter, the description fills the remaining gaps by documenting the return value despite there being no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Knowledge ID (mem_...) to delete'. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond 'by ID', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete one long-term knowledge entry by ID') and scopes it against siblings by noting that tasks, decisions and events are not affected. An agent can distinguish it from memory.promote/put/search without opening any schema.

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 names the use case ('remove knowledge that is wrong or outdated') and clarifies the boundary that other entity types are unaffected. It stops short of naming the preferred alternative for correction (e.g., memory.put), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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