memory_forgetDelete a stored memory from the local vault. Use shred to crypto-shred it permanently, making it unrecoverable.
Delete a memory. shred=True crypto-shreds it (unrecoverable from this vault).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shred | No | ||
| record_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: shred=True crypto-shreds the memory and makes it unrecoverable, implicitly contrasting with a normal delete. This is useful, though it could also state what a non-shred delete leaves behind.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the shred behavior is added compactly without redundancy.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key behavior and the one subtle flag. A small gap is the absence of any note about what happens on a normal (non-shred) delete, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains shred (crypto-shredding, unrecoverability) but gives no added meaning for record_id beyond what the schema's name already conveys. record_id is self-evident, but the compensation is only partial.
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?
"Delete a memory" states a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces the same intent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_store or memory_relations without needing to open the schema.
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 implies when to use this tool (when a memory should be removed) but does not explicitly state exclusions or point to alternatives. The shred flag does provide within-tool guidance on choosing between a regular delete and an unrecoverable one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.