memoryguard_history_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the safety burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent, that confirmation is required, and that long-term memories are not affected. However, it does not explain side effects of invalidate_evidence or whether related evidence/data is affected.

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 brief sentences with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by the guardrail and memory boundary. No filler, but the phrase 'for the trusted Agent' is slightly ambiguous and costs a point.

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?

For a destructive four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits meaning for two parameters, does not state what a successful delete returns, and gives no pointer to history_list_sessions for obtaining session IDs. The safety boundary is clear, but safe invocation needs more.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only semantic source. It covers confirmed (requires true) and session_ids (implicitly the explicitly selected sessions), but leaves scope and invalidate_evidence completely unexplained; the schema has no property descriptions to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete ... raw-history sessions.' It also adds 'never deletes long-term memories,' which clearly separates it from the memory_delete sibling, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening schemas.

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 a clear usage context (deleting explicitly selected raw-history sessions) and a precondition ('Requires confirmed=true'), plus a boundary ('never deletes long-term memories'). It does not explicitly name the alternative memoryguard_memory_delete or cover when to favor other history tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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