delete_passage

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by including 'WARNING: This action is permanent,' which discloses the irreversible nature of the deletion. Since annotations only provide a title ('Delete Archival Memory') and no other hints (e.g., destructiveHint), the description carries the burden of conveying this critical trait, though it could mention response format or error handling.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage guideline, and the second provides a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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 complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete by stating the purpose, usage, and permanence warning. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could improve by mentioning error cases or confirmation steps, leaving a minor gap.

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 description does not add semantic details about the parameters beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for agent_id and memory_id. It implies the parameters are needed but doesn't explain their format or relationships, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 a memory') and resource ('from an agent's archival memory store'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_agent or delete_memory_block by specifying the target as a passage in archival memory. It uses precise terminology that aligns with sibling tools like list_passages and create_passage.

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 provides usage guidance by stating 'Use list_passages to find memory IDs,' which indicates a prerequisite step and distinguishes it from alternatives like search_archival_memory. It also includes a warning about permanence, helping the agent understand when to use this tool cautiously versus other read-only operations.

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