memory_delete_tool

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the operation is a 'soft-delete' and noting that project paths are auto-detected from git root. However, with no annotations, it leaves gaps about whether deletion is reversible, how it affects list/get operations, and any permission requirements.

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 concise and well-structured, leading with the core operation, then presenting parameters in a clear list. There is no wasted language; every sentence adds useful 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 delete operation with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers all input semantics and the soft-delete behavior. It could add details about post-deletion effects or recoverability, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, but the tool description explains every parameter: id as the memory item ID, reason as a required deletion reason, and project as an optional path with auto-detection behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states 'Soft-delete a memory item,' which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its memory_get, memory_update, memory_list, and memory_create siblings by identifying the delete operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as memory_update or resolve_conflict_tool. It mentions that a reason is required and project is optional, but these are parameter prerequisites, not usage context or exclusions.

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