Remove a specific memory node and all its linked knowledge graph connections by providing its ID, clearing both the memory and its relationships from the local database.
Delete a memory node and cascade-delete all its associated knowledge graph edges by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the cascade-delete side effect on associated knowledge graph edges, which is critical for a destructive operation. It doesn't mention reversibility or error behavior, but the core side-effect is transparent.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the cascade side-effect. No filler.
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?
Description covers the action and key side-effect. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Missing are error-case behavior and prerequisites, but for a single-id delete tool, this is nearly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the operation is 'by ID,' clarifying that the id parameter identifies the memory node. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or what happens when the ID is invalid. The parameter name and tool name already make the meaning mostly inferable.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('memory node'), and further specifies cascade-deletion of knowledge graph edges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_memory or save_memory.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that edit_memory should be used for non-destructive changes, or that deletion is permanent. Usage is only implied by the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.