memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses cascading deletion across observations, relations, errors, and sessions, marks the action IRREVERSIBLE, and requires confirm=true. This is the critical information an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 two dense sentences with no waste. The scope, irreversibility, and safety gate are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope, effect, and confirmation requirement. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but those omissions are minor for a hard-delete operation whose result is implicit.

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%, and the schema already states that confirm must be true and entity_name is the entity to erase. The description reinforces confirm=true but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: cascading hard-delete of an entity and all references. It also distinguishes this as the alias of cuba_forget, making the relationship to that sibling clear. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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?

It frames the tool for GDPR Right to Erasure and notes the confirm=true gate, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the alias relationship.

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