forgetPermanently delete one memory you own (id from recall). Use when a memory is wrong or sensitive. Example — tools/call forget {"id":""}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory id from recall (integer for keyword engine, uuid string for semantic engine). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds 'you own' as an authorization constraint and reinforces permanence with 'permanently delete,' but does not elaborate on idempotency (despite idempotentHint) or error behavior. This is moderate additional context.
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, front-loaded sentence with an inline example, containing zero wasted words. It is concise and structured for quick scanning.
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 simple single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what, when, ownership, and provides an example. With an output schema present, no gap is evident; it is contextually complete for its complexity.
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% with a full description of 'id'. The description restates 'id from recall' and gives a call example, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Permanently delete one memory you own' with a clear verb (delete) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from siblings like recall and remember by specifying the destructive action and the source of the id.
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?
It provides a clear condition: 'Use when a memory is wrong or sensitive.' It also implies the prerequisite of obtaining the id from recall, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond that, so it's clear context without exhaustive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The four tools are role-distinct: remember writes, recall reads, forget deletes, and what_can_you_do is a discovery/help tool rather than a memory operation. No two tools could plausibly be selected for the same task.
The three core memory operations follow a clear single-verb lowercase pattern (remember/recall/forget). The helper what_can_you_do breaks that pattern, but the divergence is obvious and unlikely to mislead.
Four tools is a reasonable size for a small memory service: the three core operations plus one discovery helper. The count could feel slightly thin, but every included tool has a distinct function.
The memory lifecycle is covered for the most part: durable facts can be stored, retrieved, and permanently deleted. The main gap is the lack of an update/edit operation, though forget-and-remember is a viable workaround.