forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety profile alone. It still adds genuinely new context: default behavior archives rather than deletes, archived memories disappear from recall but remain visible on the admin page, and permanent deletion is irreversible. It does not say whether forgetting a nonexistent id errors or is silently idempotent, which is the one behavioral gap left.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the reversible default, then the irreversible exception, then the return shape. The default-behavior clarification is placed before the dangerous option, which is the right ordering. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description inlines the two possible return shapes (archived vs deleted), so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, nothing material is missing for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description goes beyond it by explaining the archive-vs-erase tradeoff behind `permanent` and by stating where the `id` comes from, which is the practical failure mode for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (forget a memory) and immediately scopes it against the sibling family by pointing to recall/list_memories as the id source. An agent can distinguish this from remember, recall, and keep_moment without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions, including user phrasings in two languages, and a second condition ("when it turns out to be wrong"). It also draws the when-not line for the destructive path: pass permanent: true only when they clearly want it erased.

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