memoryguard_memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It wisely discloses that the operation is a soft delete and that it records a DecisionEvent, which are meaningful behavioral facts. Still, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or behavior around idempotency/identity checks, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and state change are front-loaded, and the DecisionEvent note adds useful behavioral context without bloat.

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 single-required-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential effect (soft delete, status change, audit trail). There is no output schema, but the call is simple enough that the agent can proceed confidently with the schema plus this description. Some extra detail on idempotency behavior would help, but it is not essential.

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 100%, so the schema already explains `memory_id`, `idempotency_key`, and `agent_instance_id`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline score of 3 since the structured schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('memory record') and adds the resulting state (`status=deleted`), which clearly separates this from other history/binding tools. It is not a tautology and names the core action precisely.

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 implies this is the non-destructive deletion path by saying 'soft-delete', which gives some context about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over a hard delete or any alternative sibling tool, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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