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. The description adds the verb 'Delete' and context for use, but does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations provide, such as handling of non-existent keys.
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 concise sentences; the first states the core action, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant information, well front-loaded.
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 destructive tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and pairing adequately. No output schema 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% and the description does not add extra meaning for the 'key' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, naming conventions). Baseline of 3 applies.
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 a previously stored memory by key' and provides specific use cases. It also mentions pairing with sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall', distinguishing it from alternatives.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and suggests pairing with remember and recall, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use 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 set is organized into clusters (Pipeworx querying, Polymarket analysis, entity research, subscriptions, memory), but several tools within a cluster have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer questions, and polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface trading opportunities. The very detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp enough for a 4.
Most names are lowercase snake_case and there are consistent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, which aids predictability. However, the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent across the set (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, duffel_flight_search, ai_visibility_check), and some names are noun-heavy while others are verb-first. It is readable but not a uniform convention.
At 32 tools the surface feels heavy for a coherent server; the rubric treats 25+ as too many. Several tools are wrappers or variants of the same underlying capability (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edges vs bet_research, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence), so the count overstates real functional breadth.
The research/data side is very complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, profiles, monitoring, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, the Duffel flight tool only searches and never books, so if the server is meant to be a flight agent there is a notable dead end; the broader toolkit also lacks direct CRUD for most resources beyond subscriptions.