Forget (GDPR erasure)

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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the key destruction makes content unreadable even to the operator, and the operation is irreversible. This fully informs the agent of consequences.

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 carry unique information: the action, the cryptographic consequence, and the usage caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, why it is irreversible, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential 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% and the schema already describes the single parameter as 'Memory cell id (hex) to erase.' The description echoes 'cell id' without adding format, source, or validation details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('cryptographically erase'), a specific resource ('one memory by its cell id'), and legal context (GDPR Art. 17). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that remember, recall, share, or revoke.

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?

Explicitly says to use it only when erasure is intended and not 'to tidy a working set,' which guides when NOT to use it. It does not name a specific alternative like saihm_revoke_share, but the exclusion is actionable enough.

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