遺忘

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the destructive nature implicitly via 'delete' but does not state that deletion is irreversible, what happens when a memory with the given name doesn't exist, or whether any confirmation is required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficiency—for a destructive operation, more behavioral context would legitimately earn its place.

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?

Although the tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), it is a destructive mutation with no annotations. The description fails to disclose key operational details like irreversibility and missing-name behavior, so an agent calling it correctly cannot fully anticipate the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by name' adds some meaning by indicating the name parameter identifies which memory to delete. However, it doesn't clarify valid name formats, uniqueness, or case sensitivity, leaving only minimal compensation for the uncovered parameter.

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 states a specific verb (delete/刪除), resource (memory/記憶), and method (by name/依名稱). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings memory_add, memory_search, and memory_list. The purpose is unambiguous even though the sentence is brief.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't name sibling tools like memory_add or memory_list, state when deletion is appropriate, or note any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is entirely absent.

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