saihm_forgetErase a stored memory permanently by its cell ID, enabling GDPR Art. 17 erasure. Cryptographic deletion makes recovery impossible.
Cryptographically erase a memory (GDPR Art. 17 erasure). Use this only to permanently and irreversibly delete a stored memory by its cell id; this cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory entry ID (hex cellId) to erase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'cryptographically erase', 'permanently and irreversibly delete', and 'cannot be undone' beyond annotations. Annotations state destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but description provides richer context.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the action and purpose, then add usage guidance. No redundant information.
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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It could mention error handling or idempotency but is largely complete.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond reiterating 'by its cell id'. The schema already documents the parameter format and purpose.
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 identifies the verb 'erase' and the resource 'memory' with a specific legal context (GDPR Art. 17). It distinguishes from sibling tools like saihm_recall and saihm_remember by focusing on irreversible deletion.
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 includes 'Use this only to...' which implies a singular purpose but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools. It lacks direct comparison to siblings for guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.