forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses local SQLite storage, the error returned when the target is not found, the irreversibility implied by hard=true permanent expunging, cascade semantics, and even the response shape (ok/type/targetId/mode/cascadedStaleCount). This covers safety, failure, and side-effect behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by labeled sections for usage and failure behavior; every sentence carries actionable content with no filler. The structure lets an agent scan the trigger, the mode trade-off, and the exclusion quickly.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything missing: when to use, when not to, preference between modes, error behavior, cascade behavior, and a description of the return payload. No relevant gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining the soft (audit-preserving) vs hard (permanent expunge) mode distinction for 'hard' and the dependent-fact invalidation for 'cascade'. It stops short of detailing the 'target' string format beyond what the schema already says.

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 opening sentence names the exact operation (invalidate or permanently remove) and the two target types (entity or observation UUID), plus the cascading behavior. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming remember as the tool for updating facts, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE section: forget when a fact is superseded/contradicted/deprecated, prefers soft invalidation (hard=false), hard=true only for sensitive data, and an explicit DO NOT clause pointing to the remember alternative. Both the positive trigger and the exclusion are stated.

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