memory_delete

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

Discloses that it performs a soft-delete and removes from search results and ChromaDB, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It does not explain whether the record is recoverable or how it interacts with related knowledge, but the soft-delete term implies reversible behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and directly to the point, using only two sentences to convey purpose, effect, and usage condition. No unnecessary fluff or redundant details.

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 simplicity of the tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and its effect. It is fully self-contained and does not leave the agent guessing about behavior or prerequisites.

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 schema has full coverage (100%) with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Knowledge record ID to delete'. The description repeats the same information without adding extra context, such as how to obtain the ID or validation rules, so it adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (delete), the resource (knowledge record), and the effect (soft-delete, removes from search and ChromaDB). It also gives a usage context ('when knowledge is wrong or no longer relevant'), distinguishing it from other memory tools that might retrieve or update.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when knowledge is wrong or no longer relevant'). It does not mention alternative tools, but the sibling list includes memory_forget and kg_invalidate_fact, so a brief comparison would have been helpful; however, the provided condition is sufficient for basic usage guidance.

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