Delete Memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete action—no mention of irreversibility, ownership scoping, or effects on associated data.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, and every word 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?

Despite simple inputs (2 params, no output schema), the description leaves key contextual gaps: the role of owner_id, return behavior (or absence thereof), and semantics of deleting an already-deleted or non-existent memory (idempotency). The bare description is insufficient for confident 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 coverage is 50%: memory_id is documented but owner_id is not. The description does not compensate, merely saying 'by id', which adds no meaning beyond memory_id's existing schema description. owner_id remains completely unexplained.

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 specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory record by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling memory tools like memory_get, memory_update, and memory_list. It unambiguously states the operation and target.

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 implies usage (deleting a memory record) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't mention when not to use it or how it relates to other memory operations.

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