forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context beyond that: why you would forget (stale, done, sensitive data) and the pairing with remember/recall. It does not cover failure behaviors (e.g., missing key), but the annotation already covers the main safety profile.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core action, usage guidance, and relationship to related tools. No filler or redundancy, and the action verb appears in the first sentence.
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 delete tool, the description covers the action, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. Annotations disclose destructive/idempotent nature, and the schema documents the parameter, leaving no critical gaps.
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 describes the single parameter 'key' as 'Memory key to delete' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra semantics ('previously stored', 'by key'), so it stays at the baseline 3 without enriching the parameter meaning further.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a previously stored memory by key', making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'remember and recall' as related tools.
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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and references alternatives by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall'. This gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and entity_profile all perform data lookups with only subtle differences. discover_tools and suggest_questions also serve similar onboarding/exploration roles.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, query_layer, entity_profile, remember). There is a slight mix between verb-first and noun-first names but no chaotic conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb tense.
At 34 tools, the count is well above the typical 15-25 range for a coherent server. More critically, the server is named 'Arcgis Lakecountyil' but only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to ArcGIS; the remaining 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For the ArcGIS domain implied by the server name, the surface is barely complete: it offers search, schema inspection, and querying, but no create, update, delete, or management capabilities. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is relatively rich, but that doesn't match the server's stated purpose, leaving the overall set incomplete for its apparent intended use.