forget

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It discloses that deletion is permanent and provable, that facts are fully erased, and that a signed proof of deletion is returned. This is comprehensive for a destructive operation.

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 sentences, with key information front-loaded (permanence, GDPR). Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, parameter hint, and output confirmation. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior partially. It mentions a signed proof but does not describe the response format. Lacks explanation of required parameters, but overall is adequate for basic use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'object' parameter's optionality (omit to delete all values), but does not define 'subject' or 'relation'. This leaves ambiguity about their meaning, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states that the tool permanently deletes a stored fact for GDPR compliance. The verb 'forget' is somewhat abstract, but the description clarifies its meaning. It distinguishes from sibling tools like learn_fact and update_fact by focusing on deletion.

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 explicitly says to use when the user asks to forget or remove information, providing clear context. It also mentions the optional behavior of omitting the object to delete all values, but does not specify when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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