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 destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds context about clearing sensitive data and the tool's role in the memory lifecycle. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only necessary guidance without redundancy.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the necessary usage context and role within the tool family. No output schema is needed, and the description is complete.
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 has full coverage for the single 'key' parameter with description 'Memory key to delete,' and the description restates it without adding new details such as format or validation rules. Therefore the description adds no significant value beyond the schema.
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 tool deletes a memory by key, using the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory.' It also differentiates from siblings by referencing the 'remember and recall' trio, making its role as the deletion counterpart explicit.
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?
It explicitly provides usage conditions: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, implying alternatives for storage and retrieval.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple AI visibility tools, ask_pipeworx vs deep_research). Agents will have difficulty choosing the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.
Tool names use a mix of styles (snake_case, descriptive phrases) without a consistent verb_noun pattern. For example, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' have different naming conventions. This inconsistency makes it harder for agents to predict tool names.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server. Many tools could be merged (e.g., multiple polymarket tools). The count feels excessive for the scope, causing cognitive load and potential selection errors.
The tool set covers a wide range of domains (prediction markets, company data, fact-checking, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., limited entity types for company/drug only). Redundancy in some areas makes the set feel bloated rather than complete.