memanto_delete_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does the most important part: it flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and states precisely what is lost (the agent's stored memories), which is more than the bare verb would convey. It omits whether deletion is recoverable, what happens if agent_id does not exist, and whether the namespace is shared with other agents, so it is not fully transparent for an irreversible operation.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded in caps before the confirmation requirement. Nothing is redundant and the ordering matches the decision the agent must make.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a single-parameter destructive tool the essential facts (what is destroyed, that confirmation is required) are present. Only the origin/validation of agent_id and post-failure behavior are missing.

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 should explain agent_id, and it does not — no format, no statement that the ID comes from memanto_list_agents or memanto_get_agent. The parameter name itself is largely self-explanatory and there is only one, which keeps this from being a real failure.

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?

"Delete an agent and its memory namespace" names a specific verb and resource and, critically, states the scope of collateral damage (the memory namespace), which distinguishes it from memanto_create_agent, memanto_get_agent and the recall siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this tool destroys 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?

It gives an explicit pre-call protocol (confirm with the user before calling), which is the main usage condition for a destructive tool. It stops short of routing guidance such as verifying the agent with memanto_get_agent or memanto_list_agents first, or stating whether memories should be retained instead, so there is no true when-not-to-use.

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