dakera_forget

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

The description discloses that deletion is immediate and irreversible, and that using tags results in bulk deletion. With no annotations, this covers key behavioral aspects, though it does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletions or missing confirmation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and well-structured. It covers purpose, usage, and an alternative in two sentences without unnecessary detail.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential 'when' and 'how' but leaves gaps regarding agent_id semantics and the interaction between parameters, which could affect an agent's correct usage.

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 schema provides descriptions for memory_ids and tags, but agent_id has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description explains the usage of memory_ids and tags, but does not clarify the role of agent_id or whether the two parameters can be combined or are mutually exclusive.

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: to permanently delete memories by ID or tag. It specifies the resource (memories) and the method (by ID or tag), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dakera_batch_forget and dakera_memory_importance.

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: 'Provide memory_ids for exact removal or tags to bulk-delete all memories sharing those tags.' It also names an alternative (dakera_memory_importance) for a different use case (suppression instead of deletion), making the decision clear.

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