delete_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses return payloads ({'ok': true} vs {'error': 'NOT_FOUND'}), the scoped search order for project, and that client is audit-only with auto-detection from clientInfo. It omits whether deletion is permanent/irreversible 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?

Content is front-loaded and clear, but it is presented bilingually with the English text duplicating the Chinese nearly verbatim, roughly doubling the length without adding information. That redundancy costs efficiency.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: return values, project scoping order, and audit behavior. It is nearly complete, only missing auth/irreversibility details and guidance on obtaining record_id.

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 explains 'project' lookup behavior and clarifies 'client' is optional and audit-only, but says nothing about the required 'record_id' (format, where to obtain it), leaving one of three params undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a memory by ID') and the operation is unambiguously distinct from siblings like read_memory, update_memory, and write_memory. An agent can identify the correct tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explains the resolution behavior for the 'project' parameter (project sub-store vs global store, and the lookup order when omitted), which is the main usage-relevant context. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative tools, but the delete semantics are self-evident.

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