delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authorization behavior (self vs admin). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, cascading deletions) or additional behaviors beyond deletion.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value (purpose and access control). No wasted words.

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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint (access control). It could be improved by noting whether deletion is permanent or if there are error conditions, but it is adequate for a simple delete 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 100% with one parameter (memory_id). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (string ID). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('记忆' = memory). It distinguishes scope: only own private memories, with admin privilege for any memory. This differentiates it from sibling tools like store_memory, recall_memory, list_memories, search_memories.

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 provides a specific condition: only own private memories can be deleted (admin can delete any memory). This implicitly guides when to use the tool versus not, though it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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