Delete memories

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is the confirm gate for prefix deletion and the note that the tool reports deletion count plus absent ids. That is genuine behavioral context the annotations do not carry; it stops short of stating irreversibility or how partial failures are handled across a 1000-id batch.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and selection modes, then the alternative, the pre-check, and the return contract follow in order. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

With a destructive, no-required-param tool and an output schema, the description covers the destructive scope of prefix deletion, the confirmation requirement, the recommended inspection step, and the sibling to use instead. An agent can call this correctly without further reading.

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% and the schema already documents the id/ids/prefix mutual exclusion and the confirm flag, so the description is largely restating it. It does tie `confirm` to the prefix mode operationally, but adds no new syntax or edge-case semantics (e.g. calling with no selector at all, where all params are optional).

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 ("Delete") plus resource ("memories from the active store") and names the three selection modes (id, ids, prefix). It also routes away from a sibling by naming `remember` for the update case, so the tool is distinguishable without inspecting the schema.

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 names the alternative for the adjacent use case ("use `remember` to update content instead") and gives a precondition/ordering rule ("Inspect prefix matches with `list` first"). It also states the gate condition for the risky path (prefix deletion requires `confirm: true`), leaving nothing to inference.

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