delete_memory

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 states the permanent destructive nature of the action ('permanent' and 'vanish'), which is critical transparency. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or confirmation requirements beyond the description.

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 exceptionally concise — two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and permanence, the second provides the alternative, and the args block is clearly structured. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers the action, permanence, and alternative. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe return values or error behavior, but given the minimal complexity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter details. It does so by providing a concise explanation of the `memory_id` parameter: 'The id of the memory to delete (required).' This adds a clear, actionable meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Memory Id' title, though it could be slightly more descriptive about how to obtain this id.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a memory by its id' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other memory-related tools by mentioning an alternative for non-permanent removal, which helps differentiate from recall/search/store tools.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'permanent — use forget/apply via the REST API for reversible archiving instead if you just want it to fade, not vanish.' This clearly communicates the intended use case and offers a specific alternative for a different scenario.

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