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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of deletion (clearing sensitive data, stale context) and reinforcing that it is a deletion operation. No contradictions 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?
The description is very concise: two sentences that front-load the action and follow with usage context. Every word earns its place with no 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 1-parameter delete operation, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and related tools. No output schema is needed as the behavior is straightforward.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and provides a description for 'key'. The tool description mentions 'by key' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory by key'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly mentioning them as related but different operations.
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 states when to use the tool: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. It also provides guidance by directing to pair with remember and recall, covering usage context thoroughly.
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 tool set includes many similar Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research) that all serve overlapping purposes, causing confusion. The Twitch-specific tools are distinct but are buried among many unrelated tools.
Most tools use snake_case (e.g., get_streams, ask_pipeworx), but there is variation in patterns: some are verb_ noun (get_streams), some are just verbs (remember), and some are adjective_noun (recent_changes). No strong pattern across the whole set.
With 35 tools, the server is bloated for its stated purpose as a 'Twitch' server. Only about 4-5 tools are Twitch-related; the rest are from a data platform (Pipeworx) and generic utilities, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For a Twitch server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. It lacks essential Twitch features like clips, follows, chat, or channel management. The few Twitch tools present cover only basic stream and user lookup.