Delete Memory

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that deletion should be user-initiated and justified, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail permissions, side effects, or confirmation steps, but the added guidance is meaningful for safe usage.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential usage constraints. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff—making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), the description adequately covers the critical aspect of when to use it. With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation. However, it could mention error cases or confirmation behaviors, leaving minor gaps for a high-stakes deletion tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with only one parameter ('memory_file_name') documented structurally. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but it implies the parameter's role by referring to 'a memory file', adding semantic context about what the file represents. This compensates somewhat for the low schema coverage, though it lacks format or validation details.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a memory file'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_memory', 'read_memory', and 'write_memory' by specifying deletion rather than modification or access. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_memories' or other file-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'only if a user asks for it explicitly', with concrete examples ('information retrieved from a memory file is no longer correct or no longer relevant'). This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives like editing or reading memories, ensuring the agent understands the restrictive context for invocation.

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