Remove a stored memory by ID to keep the shared memory store accurate. Soft deletion allows retiring outdated decisions or pitfalls without permanent loss.
删除一条记忆（软删除）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 记忆ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the deletion is a soft delete, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what soft delete entails (e.g., recoverability, data retention, or side effects), leaving important context unstated.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the soft-delete behavior. A slight lack of structure (e.g., no separation of usage notes) keeps it from a 5.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the soft-delete nature but omits important details such as what happens after deletion, whether it can be undone, or any required permissions. More context would be needed for a higher score.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already fully documents its meaning. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('删除' – delete) and resource ('一条记忆' – a memory). It also clarifies the operation is a soft delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_pin or memory_save, which would be needed for a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb, which is not sufficient for a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.