memory_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the deletion removes from recall but remains recoverable via Git history, and it deletes 'exactly one' memory. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not mention side effects like concurrency checks, but the added recoverability and scoping are meaningful.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and core constraints, then adds the recoverability detail. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with three required parameters and an output schema, the description is thin. It omits behavior on mismatch (e.g., if expected_title or base_revision does not match), error semantics, or any guidance on when this tool should be chosen over siblings. The recoverability note is helpful (something the output schema won't reveal), but other important context is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions parameters as 'ID, expected title, and revision' without explaining their purpose, format, or how they are used (e.g., what an expected title is for, what a base revision means, or how they act as safety checks). No examples or constraints are provided, leaving agents to infer semantics from names alone.

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'), resource ('one committed memory'), and identifies the parameters by role (ID, expected title, revision). It clearly distinguishes from siblings memory_read and memory_write by the action it performs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies deletion use case without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use memory_read to view' or 'use memory_write to create'). No context is given for when a deletion is appropriate.

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