memory_delete

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

Describes irreversibility, a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. No annotations exist to cover safety, so the description partially compensates but could detail more (e.g., permission needs, cascading effects).

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?

Two efficient sentences; no filler. Purpose and caution front-loaded.

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 simple one-param delete tool with no output schema or annotations, it conveys essential info (purpose, irreversibility). Minor gap: no note on error conditions or access.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The memory ID to delete.'

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?

Clearly states 'Delete a memory by its ID' — specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like memory_store, memory_recall.

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 warns 'Irreversible — use with caution,' providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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