delete_thought

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, yet the description goes further by spelling out the cascade: edges, embeddings, and action records are destroyed along with the thought. It also discloses that deleting a nonexistent id is not an error, which is behavioral information unavailable anywhere in the structured fields.

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?

Four sentences with no filler, and the core action plus cascade are front-loaded. The final sentence partly restates the return contract that the output schema already provides, though it earns its place through the non-error-on-missing-id detail.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what gets deleted transitively, idempotent no-op behavior on missing ids, and the return signal. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and only says 'by its identifier' — effectively restating the parameter name without format, source, or how to obtain a valid id. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a thought by identifier) and immediately distinguishes the action from editing via update_thought by naming its use case as removing a memory that is wrong or unwanted. The cascade scope (edges, embeddings, action records) further pins down exactly what entity is being removed.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('remove a memory that is wrong or no longer wanted'), which is enough to pick it over read-oriented siblings like get_thought or search_memory. It stops short of explicit exclusions — it never says when to prefer update_thought or delete_edge instead, so an agent must infer that itself.

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