delete_memory_asset

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate destructiveness. It adds value by explaining the confirm parameter behavior and the recommendation to read before delete. However, it does not mention error handling for missing asset_id or permanence of deletion, which would fully leverage the absence of an output schema.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. First sentence states the core action, second provides use case and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and use case. It could mention that deletion is permanent or what happens if asset_id is not found, but overall it is mostly complete for the scope.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond summarizing the operation and mentioning the soft confirmation behavior, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 deletes an asset by asset_id from a shared memory repository. It specifies the resource, verb, and condition, and distinguishes from siblings like update_memory_asset and read_memory_asset by mentioning cleanup use cases and recommending confirmation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (cleaning outdated, erroneous, or duplicate precipitations) and recommends prior confirmation with read_memory_asset. Also implies the confirm parameter for soft confirmation, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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