forget_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details exactly what happens when a fact is forgotten: the triple is removed, provenance reification nodes are removed, and dependent facts are NOT automatically removed. It also warns about the need to check for dependent facts first. This is comprehensive transparency 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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by critical rules, behavioral details, and examples. Every section earns its place: the critical rules prevent misuse, the behavioral list explains side effects, and the examples disambiguate syntax. No unnecessary 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers preconditions (user confirmation, checking dependencies), side effects (provenance removal, dependent facts persistence), and exact input syntax. An agent can safely and correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 fully documents the only parameter as 'RDF triple to remove: Subject predicate :Object', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats this format and adds examples, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Remove a fact from semantic memory, including its provenance metadata.' It uses a specific verb (remove), identifies the resource (a fact in semantic memory), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_memory and query_memory by focusing on deletion. The scope and format are also clarified with examples.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use when user explicitly says forget, remove, that's wrong, delete that' and includes critical prohibitions about removing facts without explicit instruction or removing foundational facts before checking with query_memory. It also instructs the agent to always confirm with the user, making the usage context fully explicit.

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