memory_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to state whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires elevated permissions. For a mutation tool, the absence of any consequence disclosure is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the action and selector are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than tight.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter, yet the description adds almost nothing beyond the bare action. It leaves the agent without the consequence and identity semantics needed to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter has no description in the schema. The phrase 'by id' only restates the parameter's purpose without adding type, format, or valid-range detail, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb (delete) and resource (a memory) scoped by id, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like memory_prune, which likely also removes memories and could be confused with this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_prune or the other deletion-adjacent siblings. The agent must infer from names alone that this is the single-item delete path.

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