delete_memory

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Remove' is consistent. It adds no further behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility or side effects). Since annotations cover the destructive nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences plus an example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, destructive, with output schema available), the description covers purpose, usage context, and a concrete example. No essential information is missing.

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?

The only parameter, memory_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description provides a usage example (memory_id='abc123') but no semantic explanation beyond the parameter name. The name itself is clear, so marginal added value.

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 states 'Remove a memory by ID', clearly indicating the action (remove) and resource (memory). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_memory, update_memory, and list_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The ACTION GUIDE explicitly advises use when a memory is outdated, incorrect, or to be forgotten. It includes an example. While it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, it provides sufficient context for proper selection among sibling tools.

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