hicortex_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'Permanently delete' which clearly communicates irreversibility, and it mentions that links are also deleted. This is a meaningful disclosure of destructive behavior beyond what the bare tool name implies. It does not mention error handling or return values, but for a simple delete operation with one parameter, this is adequate.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler. The core action ('delete') and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage condition is succinctly stated in the second. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the essential context: what it does, its permanence, and when to use it. It does not explain what happens if the id is invalid or whether the operation is confirmed, but those details are not strictly necessary for the agent to decide to call it. The description is complete enough to guide correct invocation without ambiguity.

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 already provides a thorough description of the 'id' parameter: 'Memory ID (from search results, first 8 chars or full UUID)'. The schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description does not add any extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('delete'), a clear resource ('a memory'), and an important scope ('and its links'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hicortex_update (which would modify) and hicortex_ingest (which adds). The agent can easily infer what this tool does without opening 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?

The description provides an explicit condition for use: 'Use when a memory is incorrect and should be removed entirely.' This clearly implies when to use it (permanent removal) and implicitly covers when not to (e.g., for corrections, one would use update). It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the condition is sufficiently directive, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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