Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the two deletion modes (soft/hard), mentions protected memories requiring force parameter, and clarifies the destructive nature of the operation. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or response format.

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 perfectly sized at two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes core functionality, the second adds crucial nuance about protected memories. Every phrase earns its place and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description does well by explaining deletion modes and protection overrides. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could mention authentication requirements or error conditions for a more complete picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: memory_id (target identifier), soft (deletion type), and force (override protection). It provides crucial semantic context about what each parameter controls that isn't available from the bare schema.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a memory by ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' or 'remember' by focusing on deletion rather than retrieval or creation. It provides additional nuance about deletion types (soft vs hard) and protected memories.

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 provides clear context for when to use specific parameters (force=True for protected memories), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_memory' or 'rate_memory'. It implies usage through the deletion functionality but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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