delete_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that deletion is not scoped to a user ('mem0 deletes by id without a user filter'), which is a potential hazard. It also implies an identity/bucket context, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a relevant caveat. No filler; every sentence contributes essential information.

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 single-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description covers the action, parameter provenance, and a critical behavioral nuance. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional details.

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 schema already documents memory_id as 'The id of the memory to forget (from search/list results)' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by explaining why ids must come from this identity's own results, adding meaningful context to the parameter's safe usage.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Delete a single memory by its id.' This precisely states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like search_memory, add_memory, and list_memories, which involve other operations.

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 note 'ids should only be obtained from this identity's own search_memory / list_memories results' gives concrete usage guidance, explaining how to safely source the id and why (deletes without a user filter). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scoping caution serves as effective when-to-use context.

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