marrow_delete_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Soft delete' implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not explain what actually happens (e.g., recoverability, visibility, side effects) or how the 'note' and 'actor' parameters are used.

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 extremely short and to the point, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. However, it may be too terse, but conciseness is rewarded and it earns a high score for clarity without waste.

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?

The description lacks sufficient context for a soft-delete tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain return values, whether the operation is reversible, or how it differs from related tools, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand consequences.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so schema already provides the meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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') and resource ('memory'), and adds 'soft' to clarify the type of deletion. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'marrow_mark_outdated' or 'marrow_supersede_memory'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the difference between soft delete, mark outdated, or supersede, and no indication of appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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