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 safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond annotations by stating what happens (deletion of a stored memory) and why it might be used (clearing sensitive data), which helps agents assess the impact. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the usage context, and the relationship to sibling tools. No redundant or filler content, front-loaded with the core action.
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 with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to other tools. The annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, so no further elaboration is needed.
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 the key parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description adds no new meaning beyond restating 'by key,' which is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the only 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('previously stored memory') with the method ('by key'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly pairing it with 'remember and recall,' making its role in the memory workflow 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also names related tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), giving clear guidance on how this tool fits into the broader toolset.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to use each. Even overlapping functions like ask_pipeworx varieties are well-differentiated by mode (casual vs grounded vs multi-source).
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., query_layer, resolve_entity), but a few deviate with single-word verbs (forget, remember, recall) or noun_noun (layer_info). The pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.
With 33 tools, the count is high and borders on heavy. However, the tools span multiple domains (GIS, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), and each serves a unique role, so the count is justifiable but could be streamlined.
The tool set covers a broad range of data access and analysis tasks relevant to the inferred domain of a multi-purpose assistant. While the ArcGIS portion is limited, the overall surface is well-populated with few obvious gaps.