hebbrix_forget

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full burden. It discloses success return (deleted=true), the already-absent edge case (404 with already_absent=true), and a stability note about API response shape. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by response/edge-case details. No fluff, no redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the description is quite complete: it covers success, failure, and idempotent-like behavior, plus a stability note. It lacks usage context and side-effect warnings, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by id', which is redundant with the parameter name memory_id. It does not explain how to obtain the id, its format, or any constraints, failing to add meaningful semantics.

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 opens with 'Delete a memory by id' – a specific verb (delete) and resource (memory by id). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hebbrix_update (modify) and hebbrix_get (read), with no ambiguity.

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 use for deleting a memory but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no caution about irreversibility. It relies on the tool name and general semantics.

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