delete_memory_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the action is 'permanent and cannot be undone', which is essential for a destructive operation. This goes beyond what the input schema indicates, adding vital safety context.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a memory block by ID'), followed by usage guidance and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides context, and the third delivers essential safety information, with zero wasted words.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and critical behavioral warnings. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., impact on related data) or error conditions, though the warning suffices for basic use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('block_id' and 'agent_id') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'block_id' is required for deletion, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a memory block by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_memory_block' (modify) and 'read_memory_block' (view). It avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool by referencing 'list_memory_blocks to find block IDs', which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'update_memory_block' 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.