forget_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: the "WRITE" tag flags mutation, "soft-delete" clarifies data is not destroyed, and "restorable with the CLI" gives the recovery route along with a user-consent precondition. It omits edge behavior such as what happens when a prefix matches more than one memory, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three short clauses with the mutation flag front-loaded, then the action, then the precondition. Nothing repeats and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, scope, recoverability, and consent. The only material gap for a destructive-by-intent tool is prefix-collision behavior, which is left to be discovered at call time.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `id` parameter has no description at all, so the description must compensate; "by id or unique id prefix" does add real meaning over a bare string type. It leaves the ambiguity handling for non-unique prefixes unaddressed, which is the one semantic gap an agent would want.

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?

States the specific verb and resource ("Soft-delete a memory") plus the accepted identifier forms, so it is immediately distinguishable from read-side siblings like search_memories or memory_status. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly (e.g., when to use store_memory vs this), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Precondition: the user asked to forget it" gives one explicit gating condition for invocation, which is more than most tools offer. It implies the recovery path ("restorable with the CLI") but never states the negative case, such as not using it for a memory the user merely wants hidden, so it is not a full when/when-not pair.

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