memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the default is a soft delete whose record remains queryable, and only hard=true destroys it. It stops short of saying whether soft-deleted memories surface in memory_list/memory_recall or whether the operation is reversible.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the default behavior is front-loaded before the opt-in destructive flag. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

A two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema needs little more than a clear statement of destructive semantics, which this provides. The remaining gap is what a soft-deleted memory means operationally for the read-side sibling tools.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the `hard` semantics and its default, but adds no format, range, or id-resolution detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('删除一条记忆') and immediately scopes it into two modes (soft vs. hard). It does not name or contrast any sibling such as memory_update or memory_resolve, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 the decision rule for the two modes ('默认软删除' vs. 'hard=true 才彻底删除'), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it gives no when-not-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the id must be active), and no pointer to an alternative sibling tool.

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