Delete a memory key from a namespace to remove its identity entry in the local credential store.
Delete a memory key. Acts as the identity in the local credential store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key name | |
| namespace | Yes | Namespace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, or what happens if the namespace/key does not exist, and the credential-store sentence raises an unexplained side effect rather than clarifying one.
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?
It is short, but the second sentence does not earn its place — it is ambiguous and, if taken literally, suggests credential-related behavior that the input schema does not reflect. The useful content is only the first five words.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: reversibility, error behavior, and permission requirements. The cryptic credential-store line adds ambiguity instead of completing the picture.
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 100% with two documented parameters (namespace, key), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no detail about namespace scoping or key format beyond what the schema already says.
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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource ("Delete a memory key"), which distinguishes it from the agent_memory_set/get/list/namespaces siblings. The second sentence, "Acts as the identity in the local credential store," is confusing and does not clarify purpose; it reads like a stray line from another tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to delete versus set/get, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the inverse of agent_memory_set purely from the shared naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.