memory_remove

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool not only removes the fact but also removes any corresponding Markdown bullet. However, it does not mention error handling or side effects on other related data.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes both key behaviors. Every word contributes to understanding; there is no redundancy.

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 removal tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases or expected behavior when the fact_id does not exist, which would improve completeness.

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% and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the sole parameter 'fact_id'. It simply mentions 'by id' without clarifying expected format, range, or source of the ID. For a single-parameter tool, the description should provide more context.

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's verb 'Remove' and the resource 'fact by id', and also specifies the additional action of removing the matching Markdown bullet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_add or memory_update, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for removing a single fact by its ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., memory_update for modifications) or conditions to avoid (e.g., missing fact). No prerequites or when-not-to-use information is given.

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