Delete a core-memory entry by key to remove outdated or incorrect shared agent memory, keeping cross-session context accurate.
Delete a core-memory entry by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| memory_scope | No | project |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Input schema / properties / memory_scopeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "project",
+ "title": "Memory Scope",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of authorization requirements, what happens on a missing key, whether the deletion is soft or permanent, or how memory_scope interacts with the 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but this is a destructive mutation with an undocumented memory_scope parameter and no behavioral context. Combined with zero annotation-adding content, the description is too thin for the operation's risk profile.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies the 'key' parameter; the 'memory_scope' parameter with its 'project' default is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters 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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (core-memory entry) with the identifying mechanism (by key). An agent can distinguish it from core_set, core_get, and core_list, though the description doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no reference to alternatives like core_set or forget. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.