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 well: it discloses that the chunk is removed from search results, persists in the database, has importance set to 0, and gets marked in metadata. This goes well beyond a generic 'delete' statement.

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 compact and well-structured, with the key action front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding meaningful detail. The Args block is clean and immediately useful.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains the operation, its effects, and the only input. No critical behavioral or usage detail is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining chunk_id as 'The UUID of the chunk to forget.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a memory chunk by ID.' The soft-delete framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool purge_forgotten, which implies permanent 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 implies when to use this tool by explaining the soft-delete behavior: the chunk is removed from search results but remains recoverable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than direct.

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