memo_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: irreversibility (no trash), confirmation behavior for elicitation-capable clients, safe ambiguous-id resolution with errors, and cross-reference warnings. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, destructive irreversibility, confirmation nuance, and safety behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers irreversible side effects, confirmation flows, error handling for ambiguous ids, and reference warnings, leaving little ambiguity for the agent about what to expect.

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 already fully describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context about prefix ambiguity resolution and error behavior, which helps the agent understand how the parameter is interpreted without guessing.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Permanently delete one memory by id or unique prefix.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memo_forget (which likely implies a soft delete) and other memory operations.

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 usage through the phrase 'permanently delete' and mentions confirmation behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as memo_forget or memo_unforget, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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