perseus_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses soft-deletion, recoverability, and the effect on recall queries. It could be improved by mentioning any side effects or limits, but the core behavioral traits are well described.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, mechanism, and usage hint. No superfluous words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple forget tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, recoverability, and relationship to sibling tools. It could be expanded with success/failure indicators, but is largely sufficient.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'key' and 'category' form a composite key for soft-deletion and that 'reason' is an optional note, which goes beyond the schema's property 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 clearly states the action ('Remove a stale or incorrect memory'), the mechanism ('soft-deletes by (category, key)'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing prior perseus_recall/perseus_remember results, which aids selection.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the key from prior perseus_recall/perseus_remember results, providing clear context. However, it does not state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like perseus_status or perseus_reflect.

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