Delete a specific memory from persistent storage by providing its ID, keeping the memory system accurate and up to date.
Delete a memory by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It makes no statement about whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, whether it returns a success/failure indicator, what happens for non-existent IDs, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a severe gap.
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?
Although the single sentence is short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The description omits critical behavioral context, making it more of a truncated placeholder. A concise definition should pack essential information into few words, not drop essential information entirely.
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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know if deletion is irreversible, if there is a confirmation step, error handling for missing IDs, and what the return value is. None of this is provided, leaving the agent unable to predict consequences.
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% because the single 'id' parameter already has a description ('Memory ID'). The tool description's 'by ID' merely restates that same semantic without adding format, constraint, or contextual information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), clearly names the resource ('memory'), and identifies the required identifier ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling operations like write_memory, read_memories, search_memories, and update_memory, even without reading their schemas.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites like first searching for the memory ID, nor does it state that this is the only way to permanently remove a memory. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.