memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is soft (recoverable), that repeated calls on an already-deleted id are idempotent, and that an unknown id raises an error rather than silently succeeding. What's missing is auth/permission requirements and whether the memory can be restored and how.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the edge-case semantics immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two failure modes an agent must anticipate (idempotent re-delete, unknown-id error). For an unannotated mutation tool, the only real gap is permission/authorization context and recoverability.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "the id of the memory to delete", so the schema does the work. The description only echoes "by id" without adding format, source, or example values, so baseline 3 applies.

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 qualifier ("Soft-delete") plus the resource ("a memory") and the lookup key ("by id"). This is immediately distinguishable from siblings memory_add and memory_search, and the soft-delete qualifier alone tells an agent this is not a hard purge.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — an agent knows to call this when removing a memory — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or how to recover a soft-deleted memory. The idempotency note is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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