Delete specific memories by search query or memory ID. Use this to remove unwanted or outdated information from persistent AI memory.
Delete specific memories. Supports both search-based and direct ID-based deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query to find memory to delete | |
| scope | No | Scope to search/delete from (optional) | |
| memoryId | No | Specific memory ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.33Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a destructive operation. It says 'delete' but omits whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens to related memories, or what a successful result looks like.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the mode detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose reversibility, side effects, and the relationship between the two deletion modes. All of those are absent, leaving the agent under-informed about 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by grouping query/scope into a search mode and memoryId into a direct mode, but does not clarify mutual exclusivity or format expectations.
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 and resource ('Delete specific memories') and clarifies that two deletion modes exist. It does not distinguish itself from sibling mutators like memory_update or memory_merge, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
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 two-mode statement implicitly tells the agent that either a query or a memoryId drives the operation, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer search-based versus ID-based deletion, nor when to use this tool instead of memory_update or memory_merge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.