cuemap_memory_delete

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

The description discloses the permanent, destructive nature of the operation and the requirement for explicit confirmation, which are the most critical behavioral traits for a delete tool. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it covers the key safety aspect but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the critical confirmation constraint. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is optimally concise.

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 delete operation, the description covers the essential action and the confirmation gate, but it omits any details about the memory_id semantics, potential side effects, or the response. Given that the schema also lacks a description for memory_id, an agent might not know how to specify which memory to delete. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 description repeats the confirmed parameter's condition that is already stated in the schema ('Must be true only after explicit user confirmation'), adding no new meaning. It does not describe the memory_id parameter at all, which lacks a schema description. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented memory_id but fails to do so.

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 action: 'Permanently delete one CueMap memory.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'one' distinguishes it from any batch or bulk operations. It is also immediately differentiable from sibling tools like cuemap_memory_get and cuemap_memory_reinforce.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note, 'Set confirmed=true only after explicit user confirmation,' is a parameter-level instruction rather than tool-selection guidance. Usage is implied by the delete action, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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