memoryos_delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that there are two modes, archive and hard-delete, but does not state that hard-delete is irreversible, whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, this minimal description is incomplete for a destructive tool. It does not clarify what archiving means, whether hard-delete is permanent, what the operation returns, or what conditions apply, leaving an agent without enough context for safe invocation.

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 meaning by mapping the hard_delete boolean to 'hard-delete' versus 'archive,' which is useful. However, memory_id is only implicitly identified as the memory being operated on, rather than being explicitly described.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive or hard-delete') and identifies the resource ('a memory'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes two modes of operation, which helps differentiate it from generic update or list tools among the siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose archive versus hard-delete. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or alternatives like memoryos_update_memory for non-destructive changes.

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