memory_forget

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: 'appends a tombstone' reveals that the memory is not actually deleted but hidden, and 'stops appearing in recall/walk' clarifies the consequence. This goes beyond a simple 'forget' and provides important implementation detail. However, it doesn't mention idempotency or error handling for nonexistent ids.

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 a single, compact sentence (11 words) that is front-loaded with the primary action and then clarifies the underlying mechanism. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, the behavioral nuance (tombstone), and the observable effect (disappears from recall/walk). It doesn't explain return values or failure modes, but those are less critical for a forget operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'id' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' is minimal and mostly restates the parameter name; it doesn't explain what kind of id, where to find it, or any format requirements. For a single-parameter tool, it adds little beyond what the parameter name suggests.

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 ('Forget') and resource ('a memory by id'), clearly indicating the operation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_store, memory_recall, and memory_walk by focusing on the opposite action (forgetting vs. storing/recalling).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you want to forget a specific memory by its id), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the context is unambiguous.

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