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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds real value by specifying that the memory stops being *used* — a behavioral consequence (removal from future recall) that the annotations alone do not convey. It leaves unresolved whether the underlying record is permanently erased versus merely deactivated, which is the one detail an agent would still want.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the trigger condition trailing. Minimal waste, though "stop using ... forget" is mildly redundant phrasing.

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 tool with full schema coverage, an output schema absent, and annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile, the definition is largely sufficient to call it correctly. The only meaningful gap is irreversibility — whether the fact can be recovered — which the description gestures at but never settles.

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% and the single parameter already documents that memoryId comes from memory_list. The description only restates that the ID identifies the fact to forget, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ("Stop using") on a specific resource ("one remembered fact") and names the identifying parameter (memoryId), which separates it cleanly from memory_remember and memory_list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: "when the person asks SkipCalls to forget it." That is a clear use-case boundary rather than an implied one. It does not mention a when-not case or name an alternative tool, so it misses the top tier.

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