forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the single-vs-bulk deletion modes, but for a destructive operation it says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletions can be recovered, or permission requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that removes stored data.

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?

A single short sentence that is well front-loaded with the verb and scope of effect. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the caution a destructive tool warrants.

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 destructive tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits any discussion of consequences, confirmation expectations, or scope effects that an agent would need before invoking a delete operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (tags, scope, memory_id, memory_ids) are already documented in the schema, including the tags/scope interaction. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('delete one or more memories'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the read-oriented siblings (remember, recall). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so the agent must infer the inverse relationship from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool for related operations. The agent receives only a statement of effect, not context for selecting this tool over remembering, recalling, or tracking.

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