soft_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: marked memories become invisible to search/list, remain in database for audit. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, reversibility, or return values, but the core side effects are explained.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and key behavioral outcomes, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it does not mention the return value or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's outputs.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (ids, reason, forgotten_at). It only implicitly references them through the action description.

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 the action ('Expire short-term memories early without permanently deleting them') and the affected resource (short-term memories in demo.memories). It explicitly differentiates from permanent deletion, setting it apart from sibling tools like 'demote_memory' or 'batch_promote'.

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 provides explicit use case: 'Use this to clean up irrelevant or incorrect short-term memories before their natural expiration.' It implies when to use (cleaning) but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, though it's clear this is not for permanent deletion.

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