memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares irreversibility ('PERMANENTLY'), explains what is destroyed (all versions by default), and what is retained (an audit row with no content). It omits auth/permission requirements and the response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and scope default; every sentence carries information. The '[Wicked Memory]' prefix is the only minor overhead.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers permanence, scope defaults, and retention policy. It lacks any mention of the signature/nonce authorization flow or error behavior, but is otherwise sufficient to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the scope enum-like values. The description reinforces scope behavior but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('PERMANENTLY hard-delete a memory') with clear scope semantics, and the 'right-to-be-forgotten' framing distinguishes it from softer siblings like memory_update or memory_deletions. An agent can identify it as the destructive memory operation without ambiguity.

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 explains the scope parameter's default and effect, which is genuine usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer delete over memory_update or what prerequisites (signature/nonce flow) are needed. Usage is implied rather than explicit, with no alternatives named.

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