memory_delete

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 explicitly says 'Delete', which conveys destructive intent, but it does not disclose whether namespace deletion also removes contained documents, irreversibility, or any side effects. The core action is clear but additional behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single sentence that states the action and scope efficiently. No filler or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations, and the description is minimal. It does not mention the effect of deleting a namespace on its contents, irreversibility, or any requirements. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a delete operation the description lacks important safety and effect details.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the two modes: deleting a document (doc_id) or an entire namespace (namespace). The word 'or' clarifies the relationship between doc_id and namespace, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies two resources: a document or an entire namespace. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it distinguishes from siblings like memory_search or memory_index.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when deletion of a namespace is appropriate, or when other memory tools should be preferred. The description only states the action without contextual advice.

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