Permanently removes a stored belief and all its connected edges by ID, returning a deleted flag so you can confirm whether the record was found and cleared from reasoning memory.
Delete a belief and all its edges by ID. Returns {"deleted": true} if found, {"deleted": false} if not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses the cascade behavior (edges are deleted too) and the not-found outcome via the return value. It omits irreversibility, required permissions, and any warning that edge removal may affect dependent beliefs.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the second covering outcomes. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, its cascade side effect, and both return cases. It still lacks permission/irreversibility context, which would be expected for a destructive operation.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' string parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By ID' communicates that the argument selects the belief to remove, but gives no format, uniqueness, or sourcing guidance beyond what the name implies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a belief') plus the cascade scope ('and all its edges by ID'). An agent can distinguish it from get_belief/insert_belief by verb, though no sibling is explicitly named for contrast.
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?
No when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The cascading edge deletion hints at a destructive scope but doesn't tell the agent when this tool is appropriate versus other deletion tools like delete_pattern or delete_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed