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 readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds minimal context about the data being previously stored and sensitive data clearing, but doesn't go beyond what annotations and the verb 'delete' already imply. No contradiction.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose statement is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter delete tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. It is fully adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100% with the 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no further parameter details, so it doesn't improve upon the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Delete a previously stored memory by key." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remember and recall, which are explicitly named as paired 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?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: "context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data." While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the pairing with remember and recall implies the alternatives and the guidance is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools. The two tax-specific tools are distinct, but the sheer number of generic data-access tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the right one.
Naming is a mix of snake_case (ask_pipeworx, tax_search), camelCase (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, discover_tools), and inconsistent verb styles (resolve_entity vs entity_profile vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern is discernible.
The server is named 'Tax Regulations' but only 2 of 33 tools are tax-related. The other 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-access, memory, subscription, and Polymarket tools, making the count wildly excessive and mismatched with the apparent purpose.
For the tax regulation domain, tax_search and tax_regulation cover keyword discovery and full-text retrieval, which is a functional core. However, the set lacks any other tax-specific operations (e.g., updates, comparisons, planning), and the majority of the tool surface is irrelevant to the stated server purpose, leaving notable gaps for an agent expecting a coherent tax toolset.