Delete a specific memory record by its unique ID to remove outdated or irrelevant information from the agent's long-term memory.
Deletes a specific memory record by its unique ID.
Args: memory_id: The UUID of the memory record to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly discloses the destructive core behavior ('Deletes') and the target record, but it does not mention irreversibility, ownership/permission requirements, or behavior when the memory_id does not exist.
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 one direct, front-loaded sentence followed by a useful structured Args line. There is no filler, and the Args line earns its place because the schema lacks parameter descriptions.
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?
For a simple single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to know what action to take and which ID to supply. Additional details about permanence or error behavior would help but are not required for a correct invocation.
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 only provides the parameter type and title, so the description's Args block adds real meaning by specifying that memory_id is 'The UUID of the memory record to remove'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage in a concise way.
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 names the exact verb 'Deletes', the resource 'memory record', and the selection mechanism 'unique ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/remember/recall tools even though they are not mentioned.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a specific memory record should be removed and its ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as recall_memories or list_user_memories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.