mem_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial distinction between soft-delete (default) and hard-delete (permanent), which is valuable context beyond the structured metadata. However, it does not detail what happens to associated data or potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key default behavior. No unnecessary words; every element contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior (soft vs. hard delete) and the acceptance of `observation_id`. No further context is needed.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description only echoes 'by ID' and 'hard_delete' without adding new semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 tool's function: deleting an observation by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes between soft-delete and hard-delete modes, which sets it apart from other memory tools.

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 context is clear: to delete an observation, use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the delete operation is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like mem_update or mem_get_observation.

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