delete_global_memory_entry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete) and user restrictions, and mentions the return structure. However, it lacks detail on side effects, reversibility, or constraints beyond user roles.

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?

Description is concise with clear sections (description, args, returns). Front-loaded with purpose and important restrictions. One extra sentence could explain the scope further, but it remains efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, destructive operation) and many sibling memory tools, the description covers basics but lacks differentiation from delete_memory_entry and has an error in parameter requiredness. Output schema exists, so return details are less critical.

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 description adds meaning to parameters. It explains 'key' and 'caller_agent_id', but incorrectly marks caller_agent_id as required while the schema lists it as optional with default null. This contradiction reduces clarity.

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?

Description clearly states it deletes a global memory entry across all projects, with specific verb 'delete' and resource 'global memory entry'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the global scope and user restrictions.

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?

Description specifies that only Owner and Admin can use this tool, but does not provide guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., delete_memory_entry) or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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