saihm_forget

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'cryptographically erase', implying secure and irreversible deletion. With no annotations, this helps but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 sentence that front-loads the key action ('Cryptographically erase') and provides context (GDPR). Every word is relevant and there is 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks information about the result of the operation (e.g., confirmation message or error handling). It does not mention return values or side effects.

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 parameter 'id' is fully described as 'Memory entry ID (hex cellId)'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 states the tool's function: 'Cryptographically erase a memory', with specific reference to GDPR Art. 17 erasure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'saihm_remember' (write) and 'saihm_recall' (read) by focusing on 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 provides clear context by mentioning 'GDPR Art. 17 erasure', indicating when to use it (for legal compliance deletion). However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or provide alternatives, missing a 'when not to use' statement.

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