Forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that the belief remains in history, that the operation is reversible via `remember`, and that it returns what was withdrawn. It omits what happens on a miss (forgetting something not held) and any auth/permission expectations.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, what it returns, and the reversibility guarantee. No redundancy and the core action 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return value and the non-destructive persistence semantics. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior for a non-existent belief 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 coverage is 100% so the single `text` parameter is already documented; the description adds real meaning by showing the expected form is a natural-language belief description rather than an ID or key, with two worked examples. That is more than the schema conveys.

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 verb phrase "stop believing what a description names" plus concrete examples ("my editor", "that I live in Lisbon") makes the operation identifiable, and the closing clause implicitly contrasts it with the sibling `remember` which restores the belief. It is clear but phrased metaphorically rather than as a plain verb+resource statement, which costs a point.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when a stored belief should no longer be held, and the description notes that remembering it again reverses the effect. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no direct routing against siblings like `recall` or `history`.

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