dakera_batch_forget

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

The description explicitly states that deletion is permanent, a critical behavioral consequence for a destructive operation. It also warns about the risk of a full-agent wipe if no filter is provided, which is transparent about the tool's potential impact. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it meets that need.

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 concise, using only two sentences to convey the purpose, safety requirement, and alternative action. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, with the main action first followed by critical cautions.

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 description provides enough context to understand the basic operation and safety constraints, but it does not explain the return value, error handling, or how multiple filters are combined (AND vs OR). Since there is no output schema, these gaps leave some ambiguity for the agent.

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 summarizes the filter types (tags, importance range, time window, or memory type) that map to most parameters, adding context beyond the schema. However, agent_id and session_id are not mentioned in the description, and the schema descriptions are uneven (memory_type lacks a description). Thus, parameter coverage is partial.

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: bulk-deleting memories that match specified filters. It distinguishes itself from singular deletion tools by using the explicit term 'Bulk-delete' and enumerating the filter dimensions (tags, importance range, time window, or memory type).

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 important usage guidance, including the requirement that at least one filter must be provided to prevent accidental full wipe, and advises using an alternative for lowering importance instead of deletion. It does not explicitly compare with dakera_forget, but the safety and alternative guidance is useful.

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