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 context like 'previously stored' and use cases, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permanence or error handling. No contradiction with 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?
Three concise sentences; the first states the action, the second gives usage guidance, the third relates to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple single-parameter delete tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and tool relationships. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but given simplicity and idempotency hint, this is a minor gap.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter. The description repeats 'by key' but does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall' and specifying it clears data 'the agent saved earlier.'
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?
Provides explicit use cases: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' These give clear context for when to use but do not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
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 have overlapping purposes, e.g., five 'ask_pipeworx' variants and multiple prediction market tools with subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to pick the correct tool without careful reading of long descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with domain prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_, pulsedive_), but a few standalone verbs (forget, recall) break the pattern slightly. Overall consistent within groups.
33 tools is on the heavy side, but the server covers a broad range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, security, subscriptions). The count is borderline but not excessive given the scope.
The tool set covers a wide array of operations: querying, entity analysis, comparisons, prediction market edge detection, subscriptions, memory, and scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited to Polymarket/Kalshi for prediction markets), but overall the surface is comprehensive.