memory_delete_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the fact is deleted but does not explicitly mention permanence or irreversibility, which is a significant behavioral trait for a destructive operation. The context about long-term memory is helpful, but the description could be more transparent about consequences.

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 action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundant 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 simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It includes the essential prerequisite (memory_get_facts) and does not need to explain return values for such a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100% with the id parameter fully described as 'The integer ID of the fact to delete.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes a fact from AION's long-term memory by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_add_fact and memory_get_facts by focusing on removal.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use memory_get_facts first to find the ID, providing clear sequential guidance and implying that this tool is for deletion after retrieval. This is more than generic context—it tells the agent exactly when and how to use it.

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