forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive', describes the matching and removal process, and states the no-op behavior when no match exists. This fully discloses safety-critical aspects.

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: a headline, a warning/behavior line, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, destructive nature, edge case (no-match), and parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. For a two-parameter tool, this is complete.

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%, but the 'Args' section provides meaningful semantics: query is described as 'Describes the memory to remove' and user_id as 'Namespace to delete from (default "default")'. This goes beyond the schema's minimal labels and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory') with explicit scope ('single memory most relevant to query'). It clearly distinguishes this from reset_memories (bulk deletion) and remember/recall (memory creation/retrieval).

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 conveys clear context: this is for deleting a single memory based on relevance to a query. It implies the distinction from bulk deletion via the word 'single' but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This is a clear context, no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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