delete_all_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it flags 'PERMANENT deletion' in bold, warns with '⚠️ Cannot be undone', discloses the scope-matching behavior, the auto-detection of the current user, and the return shape (confirmation with count). For a destructive tool, this is exemplary disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the permanence warning leads, followed by scannable OPTIONAL bullets, two concrete examples, and a one-line return note. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified given how destructive the operation is.

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?

For a 4-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics well (scope, fallback, permanence, return). But it leaves real gaps: the verbose parameter is undocumented, it doesn't state what happens if both user_id and agent_id are provided, and it doesn't explain how it differs from bulk_delete_memories or delete_memory, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 3 of 4 parameters: it explains user_id and agent_id as alternative scopes ('OR'), run_id as a session/run scope, and the fallback when neither is provided. However, the 'verbose' parameter is entirely undocumented, which prevents a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete all memories for a specific scope. PERMANENT deletion.' The scope qualifier (user/agent/run) makes the operation well-defined. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'bulk_delete_memories' or the singular 'delete_memory', which cost it the top score.

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 clear invocation context via the OPTIONAL scope bullets and concrete examples ({"user_id": "john"}, {"run_id": "session_123"}), explaining how to select a scope and the auto-detection fallback. But it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like delete_memory, bulk_delete_memories, or reset_memory, so tool-selection guidance is left to inference.

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