Kronvex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: performs a high-threshold semantic search (0.7), deletes up to 3 results, and returns a list of deleted memories or a message if nothing matched. It also clarifies the permanent nature of deletion ('permanently delete'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or confirmation prompts.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, and finally details internal behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., the 0.7 threshold is mentioned twice).

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with semantic search), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter context. However, it lacks details on error cases, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a destructive 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'query', so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by reinforcing the semantic search aspect and giving examples ('old database URL', etc.), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema description (which already explains semantic search and gives examples).

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for memories' and 'permanently delete the top matches') and distinguishes it from siblings (recall, remember, inject_context) by emphasizing deletion rather than retrieval or storage. It explicitly mentions what resource it operates on (memories).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when the user explicitly asks to forget something' or 'when you detect that a stored memory is no longer accurate.' It gives concrete examples (e.g., dependency upgraded, decision reversed, team member left), clearly differentiating it from recall/remember tools which are for retrieval/storage.

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