forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses irreversibility ('the memory and its embeddings are deleted'), error conditions ('Returns an error if the memory_id doesn't exist'), and return values ('Confirmation that the memory was deleted'). This provides critical safety context 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?

Despite length, every sentence serves a critical purpose for a destructive tool: irreversibility warning is front-loaded, prerequisite steps are explicit, usage scenarios are bulleted for scanability, and Args/Returns sections compensate for schema gaps. No redundancy exists; structure enhances clarity.

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?

Given the high complexity (irreversible deletion, prerequisite lookups needed) and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, safety implications, prerequisite workflow, usage scenarios, anti-patterns, parameter semantics, and return behavior—sufficient for safe autonomous operation.

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% (memory_id lacks description field), but the description fully compensates: it explains the parameter represents 'The unique memory identifier', provides format example ('mem_abc123'), and specifies provenance ('obtained from `remember`, `recall`, or `list_memories` results'), giving the agent complete semantic context.

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 ('Remove') + resource ('memory') + scope ('permanently from your knowledge graph'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with `remember` (for creating/updating) and `recall`/`list_memories` (for retrieving), establishing its unique place in the CRUD lifecycle.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Use `recall` or `list_memories` first'), three specific 'Use this when' scenarios with examples, and a clear anti-pattern ('Do NOT use this to "update" a memory') with the correct alternative workflow. This covers when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives comprehensively.

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