qq_forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that deletion is local-only and upstream chats stay intact, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., message history, cached context) or whether the operation is reversible. No contradiction 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes a clarifying clause about upstream chats. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema. The description explains the core behavior but leaves parameter semantics unexplained. Given the destructive nature and the need to select the right target, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'one allowed target' but does not explain what 'provider', 'kind', or 'target' mean or how they relate. The enums for kind and provider are in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value for these parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('locally retained incoming context for one allowed target'), and distinguishes it from upstream chats staying intact. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from qq_send, qq_status, qq_targets, and qq_context.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to delete locally retained incoming context for a target. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like qq_context for viewing context. The 'upstream chats stay intact' clause gives some usage context but no explicit routing guidance.

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