memory_delete_domain

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it emphasizes irreversibility, the necessity of confirm=true as a safety interlock, and the comparative destructiveness relative to memory_delete. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies the scale and safety measures.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most critical information (irreversible, destructive). It provides necessary guidance without excessive verbosity. Minor improvement could be more structured, but it is already effective and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, safety mechanisms, and warnings. No output schema is present, but the description covers the essential behavioral expectations sufficiently.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'domain' parameter as a namespace to wipe and requiring exact match, and 'confirm' as a deliberate safety interlock. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 tool's purpose: to permanently delete all memories in a single domain. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'memory_delete' by highlighting that it is far more destructive and targets entire domains rather than individual 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 explicitly states when to use the tool (only on explicit user request to wipe a whole topic) and provides a prerequisite: run memory_stats to confirm the exact domain name. It also warns against speculative or automatic cleanup use, and mentions the safety interlock confirm=true.

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