memory_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only says 'Delete', which implies irreversibility, but fails to state this explicitly, required auth scopes, or if the deletion is soft or hard. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Could arguably add 'irreversibly' for transparency, but current length is efficient.

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?

Given 2 required params, 0% coverage, an output schema exists but is not referenced, and 7 siblings. The description is too minimal; it omits return value info, ID source hints, and deletion semantics. Incomplete for reliable agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'project' or 'point_id' represent, their formats, or any validation rules. The description adds no paramenter meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a single memory entry'), differentiated from siblings like memory_store or memory_search. The 'by ID' detail specifies the key identifier.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., memory_summarize_session might delete differently), no prerequisites for which IDs are valid, and no consequences like cascading effects.

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