forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that content is kept, embeddings are not recomputed, and a reason is recorded as an audit entry. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but for a soft-delete action, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 is mostly complete for a simple tool given no output schema. It explains the key behavior and the `reason` parameter, but lacks explanation for `superseded_by` and could benefit from explicit usage context vs sibling tools. Still, adequate.

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% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains the `reason` parameter (audit entry) and implies `uid` is the memory identifier, but does not explain `superseded_by`. This partial coverage earns a 4, as it adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 archives a memory via soft delete, keeping content but excluding from default search/list. It also notes recording a reason as audit entry, providing a specific verb (archive) and resource (memory) that distinguishes it from siblings like purge_memory.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to exclude from results but retain data) by contrasting soft delete with default search/list behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like purge_memory or set_confidence, and lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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