delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does specify the exact directory being modified and adds a safety condition, but it omits critical details such as permanence/irreversibility of deletion and error behavior. This leaves some ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the action and target. The second sentence adds a necessary usage boundary. There is no redundancy or filler; every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool does, where it operates, and when it should be used, which is sufficient for a simple delete operation with two well-documented parameters. It lacks explicit mention of irreversible consequences or return values, but those are not required given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('name' and 'workspace') with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it also doesn't supplement any missing nuance about parameter usage.

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 action ('Delete a memory by name'), the specific resource (memory in .plumb/memories/ directory), and the workspace scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file and other memory operations.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use only when explicitly asked, or when the memory has clearly become obsolete' with a concrete example. This establishes both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, effectively preventing accidental misuse.

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