Agent Memory Bridge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive (delete/remove) and importantly describes response behavior: 'tells you whether anything was deleted and returns the removed item metadata when a match is found.' This informs the agent that the call may return empty results and what payload to expect on success.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: (1) definition with operation and target, (2) usage scenarios with domain context, (3) response contract. No redundancy or generic filler. Front-loaded with the core verb.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with 100% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers operation definition, usage context, and response characteristics without needing to duplicate structured output schema details.

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% (1 parameter with full description). The description references the parameter ('by id'), establishing the connection between the delete action and the ID argument, but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate per calibration for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'Delete one stored entry by id' - specific verb (delete) + resource (stored entry) + scope (by single ID). References domain concepts 'memory', 'write', and 'signal' which map to sibling tools (store, recall, claim_signal), distinguishing this tool's destructive role from retrieval or creation siblings.

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 explicit positive guidance: 'Use this tool to remove a bad memory, an accidental write, or a signal that should no longer exist.' This clarifies the deletion intent. Lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to use claim_signal vs forget), preventing a perfect 5.

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