forget

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying 'soft-delete' (implies reversibility) and the ownership check behavior with agent_id. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which is consistent, and description elaborates on the specific behavioral nuance.

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 primary action, and every sentence provides essential information 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward behavior, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, visibility change, conditional behavior, and error case. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description explains the semantic of agent_id (optional, owner check) and implies id identifies the memory. This compensates for missing schema descriptions, though id's role is obvious.

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 verb 'soft-delete' and the resource 'memory', and the effect of no longer appearing in search results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_memory and get_memory, which are not destructive.

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 explains the condition for using agent_id and the error response when ownership mismatch, providing clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the tool is unique in its purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.