glm_memory_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Memory delete' without clarifying if the deletion is permanent, what side effects occur, or whether it requires confirmation. For a deletion operation, this is insufficient.

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 extremely short (two words), which makes it under-specified rather than concise. It fails to efficiently provide necessary usage details, resulting in poor structure.

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 is a deletion operation with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks essential context such as behavior on missing keys, permanent effects, and interaction with other memory tools. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'key' parameter ('삭제할 키' – key to delete). The description adds no extra meaning, but the schema already provides adequate information, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 is '메모리 삭제.' which is a tautology of the tool name 'glm_memory_delete'. It restates the name without adding any specific verb or resource details, providing no additional clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when or when not to use this tool. No mention of alternatives like glm_memory_get or glm_memory_list, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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