delete_memory

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

Although annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial operational context: what is removed, that search and injection stop working, that a snapshot is written first, that restore is outside this tool, auth requirements, and NotFound behavior on repeat deletion. No annotation is contradicted.

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 dense but well front-loaded, starting with the core action and consequences. Every sentence contributes useful behavioral or routing information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important missing context: side effects, recoverability, auth behavior, repeat-call behavior, and the correct alternative for permanent deletion. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and avoid mistakes.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces memory_id and auth requirements but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb and resource: soft-delete one memory by ID. It precisely states the scope and consequences, including removal of the live row, FTS entry, and evidence relations, and explicitly distinguishes this from forget_memory.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool for irreversible GDPR-style purges, forget_memory, and explains that restoration is available only through the CLI rather than this MCP tool. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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