Forget (GDPR erasure)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: key destruction makes the content unreadable to everyone including the operator, and the operation is irreversible. This goes beyond what annotations express and properly warns an agent about 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 with a distinct job: state the action, describe the cryptographic consequence, and give the usage rule. There is no filler and no repetition of what the schema already provides.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with destructive/readOnly/idempotent annotations already present, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and when to use it. With no output schema, return-value documentation is not required here.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the id parameter already described as 'Memory entry ID (hex cellId) to erase.' The description reinforces 'by its cell id' but adds no additional syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Cryptographically erase one memory by its cell id' — a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly distinguishes it from the remember/recall/share siblings. The GDPR Art. 17 framing reinforces that this is a true erasure operation, not a soft delete.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('use it when erasure is the intent') and provides an exclusion ('not to tidy a working set'). It does not name a concrete alternative sibling, so the routing guidance stops just short of a fully explicit 5.

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