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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that 'disable' is reversible (facts move to disabled) and 'delete' is a real erasure of facts, embeddings, events, and traces, and that it returns an erasure receipt and counters. This is transparent about the mutation and its consequences, though it does not mention permissions or reversibility of delete (which is implied by 'real erasure').

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 concise, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and the second explains the modes and return value. No wasted words.

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 tool with a single parameter, the description is highly complete. It explains both modes, their effects, and the return value. The presence of an output schema means the return format doesn't need detailing. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a subject must be configured) but this is likely context-specific and not critical for invocation.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter 'mode' with a default and no description or enum. The description compensates fully by explaining the two allowed values ('disable' and 'delete') and their distinct semantics. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameter clear for the agent.

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 verb 'forget' and the resource 'configured subject's memory in this project', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes the two modes, which adds specificity. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the action of forgetting is inherently distinct from capture, context, correct, and inspect, so an agent can easily identify the correct tool.

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?

The description explains the two modes and their effects (disable vs delete), giving some usage guidance on mode selection. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of when to use forgetting is implied but not explicit, so the agent must infer it.

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