cortex_forgetDelete a specific memory by its ID after user confirmation to remove unwanted or outdated information from the AI agent's semantic memory.
Delete a memory given its id. Ask the user for explicit confirmation first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id of the memory to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Delete'. It adds a valuable behavioral rule—'Ask the user for explicit confirmation first'—which is not present in annotations or schema and is essential for safe invocation.
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 two short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the critical safety instruction. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential call conditions: the target id and the mandatory user confirmation. It omits return values or error behavior, but given the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the operation, this is acceptable.
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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter ('id of the memory to delete') with 100% coverage. The description merely echoes 'given its id' without adding format, source, or additional lifecycle details, so it meets the baseline but no more.
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 states a concrete action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a memory given its id'), making it clear what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/write tools like cortex_recall, cortex_write, search, and fetch.
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?
It identifies a clear precondition: the agent must ask the user for explicit confirmation before calling. It also implies usage context by specifying that an id is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, which would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.