Clear Context Memory

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

The description is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation by stating 'Delete entries'. However, it does not disclose important behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as the existence and implications of the confirm_wipe_all parameter, which can wipe the entire memory. Since annotations already declare destructiveness, this is not a contradiction, but the description adds only limited context about the deletion scope.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality without any redundant content.

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?

The tool is a destructive operation with three optional parameters, including a flag that can wipe all memory. The description doesn't mention the wipe-all behavior or the risk of permanent deletion, making the tool's full scope incomplete. While annotations provide a destructive hint, the description should have addressed the confirm_wipe_all parameter to fully inform the agent.

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 100% coverage for all three parameters, each with descriptions. The description mentions 'tag or project' which aligns with two parameters, but it doesn't add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The confirm_wipe_all parameter is not mentioned in the description, so the description doesn't fully compensate for potential ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'entries from semantic memory' with explicit filtering criteria ('by tag or project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pin_context' and 'retrieve_context', which handle adding and retrieving context, not deleting.

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 implies usage for deleting memory entries filtered by tag or project, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It's clear enough for the basic operation but lacks direct comparative context.

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