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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds usage context but no extra behavioral depth beyond the obvious deletion action. It does not mention what happens if the key doesn't exist or whether deletion is permanent, but the annotations sufficiently signal destructiveness.
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 function, the second provides usage conditions and sibling pairing. Every word earns its place, no redundant content.
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, no-output-schema deletion tool, this is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. The annotations fill in the destructive semantics, so nothing critical is missing.
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%: the only parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description's phrase 'by key' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource ('a previously stored memory by key'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like remember and recall. It also mentions these siblings explicitly, reinforcing its unique role in the memory workflow.
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 states when to use the tool ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and even advises pairing with remember and recall, giving clear contextual guidance without needing to consult sibling descriptions.
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 detailed, differentiated roles, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Onboarding/discovery and Polymarket edge tools also blur together, so an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.
Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, with coherent subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and list_*. But conventions are mixed across the set: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and adjective-led names (recent_alerts) exist alongside verb_noun names, so there is no consistent pattern.
35 tools is already in the 'too many' range, and only four (get_exercise, list_exercises, list_equipment, list_muscles) belong to a wger fitness server. The remaining ~31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory utilities, making the count inappropriate for the apparent domain.
As a wger fitness server, the surface is a read-only reference slice: exercise, equipment, and muscle lookups, with no workout routine management, user data, or create/update/delete operations for any wger resource. Even ignoring the unrelated Pipeworx tools, the fitness domain has severe gaps that would block most real usage.