delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the call trigger and the fallback to search_memory when IDs are missing. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens if IDs don't exist, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the trigger condition and then provides a conditional workflow. Every word contributes essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description provides the core usage context and a fallback procedure. However, it omits important details like error handling, irreversibility, and return values, which are typically expected for a delete operation. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 sole parameter memory_ids is described in the schema as '要删除的记忆 ID 列表' (list of memory IDs to delete), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal value by implying that if IDs are absent, one should search first, but it doesn't further elaborate on the parameter's format or use beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states '用户要求删除记忆时调用' (call when user requests to delete memory), clearly indicating the tool's purpose of deleting memory entries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_kb_documents, which target knowledge base documents, and search_memory, which is for searching.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger condition ('when user requests to delete memory') and a concrete alternative workflow: if no ID is provided, first use search_memory to find it. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to handle missing IDs, effectively differentiating it from alternatives.

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