memo_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. Description adds key behaviors: permanent deletion, safe short-id resolution, and warnings about linked memories when indexing is enabled. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral traits. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema (not shown) and simple input, description covers deletion behavior and warnings. Could strengthen by explicitly noting difference with memo_forget (if it is reversible). Otherwise complete for a deletion tool.

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 has only 'id' with no description (0% coverage). Description adds meaning: accepts 'id or unique prefix', and explains safe resolution of ambiguous short ids. Provides critical usage nuance beyond raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Permanently delete one memory by id or unique prefix', specifying the verb (delete), resource (memory), and scope (by id or prefix). Distinguishes from siblings like memo_forget and memo_update by emphasizing permanence and safe resolution.

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?

Provides guidance on handling ambiguous short ids (returns error instead of guessing) and mentions cross-reference indexing warnings. However, could more explicitly contrast with reversible alternatives like memo_forget.

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