mnemos

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

The term 'soft-delete' adds crucial behavioral nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, implying the memory is retained in a recoverable state rather than permanently destroyed. This distinction helps agents understand the operation is reversible, though the description could further clarify visibility changes or recovery mechanisms.

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 four-word description is efficiently front-loaded with no redundant content, conveying the core operation immediately. However, for a destructive operation, this extreme brevity leaves critical behavioral implications (recoverability, visibility) unexplained.

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 simple single-parameter schema and comprehensive annotations covering destructiveness and mutability, the description minimally suffices for basic invocation. However, it omits important operational context such as recovery procedures, the distinction between soft and hard deletion, and side effects on memory relationships.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'id' parameter labeled 'Memory ID', the schema fully documents inputs without requiring supplemental description. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage but leaves it at baseline.

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 provides a specific verb ('Soft-delete') and resource ('memory'), clearly indicating the tool marks memories as deleted rather than permanently removing them. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., cascade effects on related memories) and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mnemos_update or potential hard-delete 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 description contains no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as mnemos_update or mnemos_maintain, nor does it mention prerequisites or recovery procedures. It fails to clarify whether soft-deleted memories can be restored or when permanent deletion might be necessary.

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