forget_memory

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: permanence, cascade effects (deletion, KG removal, demotion, audit), and the confirmation requirement for durable-tier memories. It covers the essential destructive nature but omits details on error handling or idempotency.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded; the second sentence adds a critical condition; the third provides usage context. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, cascade behavior, and usage. It lacks details on return values or failure modes, but the core functionality is well explained.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new information beyond restating the confirmation behavior for durable-tier memories already present in the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('forget') and resource ('memory') with a detailed cascade of actions (delete primary entry, remove KG triples, demote related memories, log audit trail). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like store_memory or search_memory by describing a unique destructive operation.

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 usage scenarios: 'when the user explicitly requests a memory be forgotten, or to clean up sensitive/incorrect data.' While it doesn't list negative cases or alternatives, the guidance is clear and directly applicable.

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