Delete memory

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

The term 'soft-delete' hints at non-destructive behavior, but with no annotations, the description should more clearly explain what happens to the memory (e.g., is it recoverable? Does it affect related conclusions?). It does not address side effects, authorization needs, or data retention.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It fits for a simple tool, but could benefit from additional context about the soft-delete behavior or return format.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description should cover basics like what the 'id' refers to and what happens after deletion. It mentions 'soft-delete' but omits details about restoration or confirmation, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 has a single parameter 'id' with no description. The tool description says 'by id' but does not clarify whether this is a memory ID, conclusion ID, or something else. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents uncertain about acceptable values.

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 ('soft-delete') and identifies the resource ('memory or conclusion by id'), making the tool's action clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_conclusion' and 'list_conclusions', but could be more explicit about its unique role.

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, such as when a hard delete might be needed or how it differs from 'remember' or 'ask_memory'. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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