delete_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying success and error return shapes, including NOT_FOUND and FORBIDDEN ownership restrictions. It could further disclose that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, but the core behavioral surface is covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation and return values. The bilingual repetition adds some length but is acceptable given multilingual context. No filler or irrelevant details are present.

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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main operation, the three return states, the ownership restriction, and the optional client parameter. Minor gaps remain around project semantics and explicit irreversibility, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for client by saying it is the source client and optional, defaulting from clientInfo. It does not explain project beyond its role in ownership, and record_id is only implicitly described as 'by ID'. Partial compensation but not full.

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 action: deleting a memory by ID. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like write_memory and read_memory. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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: use this tool to delete a memory by ID. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as update_memory for modifying existing memories. The context is clear but implicit.

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