memory_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure on idempotency, error handling (e.g., if key doesn't exist), permanence of deletion, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a destructive operation.

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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose followed by a clean arg list. No redundancy, but could expand on behavior without losing conciseness.

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 simple delete tool, it describes what it does and the parameters, but it omits return value behavior (e.g., success indication, error messages). With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify these aspects to be complete.

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?

The description adds a little value beyond the schema by clarifying layer options ('user' or 'agent') and associating key with 'fact key'. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only parameter documentation; it doesn't explain constraints on user_id or key format, remaining basic.

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 first line clearly states 'Delete a fact from L4 memory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_remember which are for retrieval or storage, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_cleanup, memory_lucidity_purge). The description only states what it does, without context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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