forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility, a passphrase-verification prerequisite (an identity string alone cannot wipe), and the post-state ('no recall will return the folder's notes,' folder starts fresh). It even explains the underlying storage semantics — old encrypted notes persist on Walrus until expiry but are never served — which is unusually candid and prevents a misread of 'permanently'.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the confirmation requirement before any nuance. Roughly 110 words is defensible for a destructive, auth-gated tool, though the closing 'Honest semantics' paragraph is slightly discursive and could be tightened without losing substance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Given a destructive, irreversible operation with a passphrase guard, the description covers confirmation, authorization, irreversibility, and post-state — everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'folder' parameter's default-space behavior is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, naming, or format guidance beyond what the schema already says about the folder argument.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Forget') and resource ('a folder of the user's memory') and states the effect ('permanently'). It reads clearly against siblings remember/recall/list_files/fetch_file, which are non-destructive operations on the same memory store.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'call it only when the user explicitly asks to forget or wipe a folder, never on your own judgement,' plus a required 'Confirm with the user first.' The gateway condition is stated unambiguously, which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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