Delete memory

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the blast radius (removes the memory for every connected tool), the irreversibility, the required user confirmation, and the response outcome (deleted vs not found). That is meaningful context an agent cannot infer from structured fields alone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequences, then confirmation policy, then id provenance, then return value. No sentence is filler, though the id-source sentence overlaps 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, cross-tool impact, confirmation gate, input source, and return semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely 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 schema's own id description already explains the numeric id and the '#' notation from search_memory/memory_timeline results, so the description's pointer to those sources largely duplicates it. 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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete), resource (one memory), and selector (by its id), which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_memory and search_memory. The scope limitation to a single memory is explicit.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions (outdated, wrong, saved by mistake), an explicit confirmation requirement with its exception, and routes the agent to search_memory or memory_timeline to obtain the id. When-to-use, when-to-confirm, and where-to-get-input are all covered.

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