recall_forget

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: deletion is scoped to 'this server's own tenant,' missing sources are reported in `sources_not_found` rather than silently counted as removed, and the return structure is explicitly documented. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and well-structured: a bolded one-line lead, a paragraph for usage context, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no fluff. Key warnings (IRREVERSIBLE) are front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema (per context), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral side effects, and return structure. It is fully self-contained and complete.

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 only defines `sources` as an array of strings with zero descriptive coverage. The description fully compensates: 'sources: one or more source values to forget, exactly as they appear in `recall_search` hits (the `source` field).' This clarifies the array nature, required format, and source of values, exceeding schema information.

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: 'Permanently delete indexed memory for the given source(s). IRREVERSIBLE.' It uses a specific verb (delete/forget) and resource (indexed memory), distinguishing it from read/search siblings like recall_search and recall_index. The phrase 'right-to-erasure path' adds further specific intent.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'use it to make the agent forget a memory that should no longer be recalled (e.g. it indexed something it should not have retained).' It also hints at the workflow by referencing `recall_search` for obtaining source values, implying search is for discovery and this tool for deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for adding/indexing, so a perfect 5 is not warranted.

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