delete_memento

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Partially succeeds by disclosing that relationships are destroyed alongside the memento (cascade behavior). However, fails to mention irreversibility, authorization requirements, or impact on related mementos when their relationships are severed.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words with front-loaded verb. No redundant text. However, brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool that warrants safety warnings.

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?

As a destructive mutation tool with cascade effects, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It mentions relationship deletion but omits critical safety context (permanent data loss, orphaned relationship handling) required for responsible invocation.

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% (memory_id fully documented in schema). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but per rubric guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memento' plus scope 'all its relationships', effectively distinguishing from sibling read tools (get_memento, search_mementos) and update tools. However, lacks explicit guidance distinguishing when to use this versus update_memento.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor warnings about irreversibility. For a destructive cascade operation, the absence of prerequisites or safety considerations is a significant gap.

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