vmn_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly warns that deletion is permanent, which is a critical destructive behavior beyond what the tool name alone conveys. It also specifies the store is the 'local vault'. It does not detail every edge case such as idempotency or behavior for missing hashes, but the most important behavioral trait is explicitly disclosed.

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 only two short sentences, front-loads the action and target, and adds the critical permanence warning without any filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description and schema together provide the essential context: what is deleted, how it is identified, where, and that the operation is irreversible. Minor missing details such as index or sync side effects could be helpful but are not necessary for safe invocation of this simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'hash' parameter as the SHA-256 root hash. The description repeats this information without adding meaningful new semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for a fully documented parameter but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the exact resource ('memory object'), identifies the targeting mechanism ('SHA-256 root hash'), and scopes the action to the 'local vault'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vmn_ingest or vmn_list, and no ambiguity remains about what operation is performed.

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 usage is appropriate when a memory object must be removed permanently, and the unique verb 'Delete' makes it stand out from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, mention prerequisites such as verifying the hash first, or compare itself to alternative tools. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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