saihm_forget

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

Discloses that erasure is cryptographic and irreversible, with legal significance. However, with no annotations, it omits details on authorization requirements, effects on shared memories, or rate limits. Adds some context but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the key action and legal basis. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from a cautionary note given irreversibility. Still efficient.

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?

Tool has no output schema and only one parameter, but description fails to explain return behavior, side effects on sharing relationships, or success/failure conditions. Incomplete for a destructive action.

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 already has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as the memory entry ID in hex. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool cryptographically erases a memory, referencing GDPR Art. 17 for legal context. Distinguishes from siblings like saihm_remember (create) and saihm_recall (retrieve) by explicitly focusing on erasure.

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?

Description implies use for permanent deletion, especially in GDPR contexts, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like saihm_recall or saihm_revoke_share. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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