Delete a memory file

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

destructiveHint=true already flags the safety profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: journal files are immune to deletion, and a paired backup box retains what it already received, so deletion is not fully propagated. It does not state error conditions (missing path, journal rejection) but covers the key side effects.

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 short sentences, each with a distinct job: the action, the exception, and the persistence caveat. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, and the important 'backup keeps a copy' caveat. Only path format and failure behavior are left unaddressed.

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 0% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description never explains its expected format (relative vs absolute, extension, whether it names a directory or file). 'One file' only weakly implies the path targets a file, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete') on a specific resource ('one file from your memory on the box'), and explicitly excludes journal files, which is the main overlap with the journal_* siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this removes.

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?

Usage is implied by the action (remove a stored memory file) and there is a hard exclusion ('Journal files can't be deleted'), but no guidance on when this is preferable to alternatives or on prerequisites such as knowing the path via memory_list/memory_read.

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