Logically delete the active revision of a shared memory entry by ID and expected revision, preserving historical content in SQLite and Markdown history without physical erasure.
Logically delete the active revision. Historical content remains in SQLite and the Markdown history; this is not physical erasure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| request_key | No | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully adds that content persists in SQLite and Markdown history, which is real context about what is and isn't destroyed. However, the significant behavioral risk of this tool — that a required expected_revision can cause the call to fail on a stale revision, and that request_key affects retry deduplication — is never mentioned.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action followed immediately by the crucial retention caveat. Every phrase earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the semantics of the deletion well but leaves the agent without the concurrency/idempotency model needed to call it reliably. Adequate for understanding the effect, incomplete for executing the call.
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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it explains none of them. 'Active revision' loosely gestures at expected_revision, but reason, request_key (deduplication) and id are entirely unexplained, leaving the two non-obvious parameters opaque.
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+scope: logically delete the active revision, which clearly separates 'forget' (soft delete) from physical deletion. It does not name the sibling tools it competes with (correct_memory, delete_entities, forget vs. history), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 statement of when to choose this over correct_memory (fix a value) or memory_history (inspect) or delete_entities, which is exactly the ambiguity a 'forget' tool creates in this sibling set. The only guidance is an implied contrast with physical erasure, not a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.