Delete a specific memory by ID or remove an entire memory bank when no ID is provided.
Delete a memory by id (mem0) or drop an entire Hindsight bank when bank is set without memory_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | Hindsight bank to delete, or mem0 user_id scope for bulk delete | |
| memory_id | No | Provider memory id (mem0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive scope (single memory vs. entire bank), but omits irreversibility, confirmation requirements, and what happens if both parameters are supplied — significant gaps for a delete tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and then the conditional second mode. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two modes but leaves out preconditions, irreversibility, and result behavior. Adequate to call correctly, but not fully complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between the two parameters — that bank without memory_id triggers a whole-bank drop. That conditional semantics is not inferable from the schema alone.
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 (delete/drop) with two clearly delineated resource modes: a single memory by id via mem0, or an entire Hindsight bank. This is readily distinguishable from siblings like memory_recall, memory_search, and memory_add.
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 a concrete routing rule: pass bank alone to drop a bank, pass memory_id to delete a single memory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer memory_consolidate), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.