Remove a stored workflow memory by id, preventing it from being recalled in future sessions.
Remove a stale, sensitive, or incorrect workflow memory by id. This appends a local tombstone; normal recall will stop returning that memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Workflow memory id, e.g. wm_20260604123000_ab12cd34. | |
| reason | No | Optional short reason for the deletion. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action 'appends a local tombstone' and that 'normal recall will stop returning that memory', which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'remove'. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the tombstone detail is a strong transparency addition.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral disclosure is appended concisely. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the tombstone effect. It does not describe the return value, but that is minor for a deletion action. The lack of an explicit alternative routing is a small gap, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.
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%, so both parameters (id and reason) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; the id example in the schema is actually more specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers parameters thoroughly.
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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('workflow memory by id'), and specifies the id-based targeting. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like browser_workflow_recall and browser_workflow_remember by the verb 'forget', so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (stale, sensitive, or incorrect memory) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'stale, sensitive, or incorrect' phrasing implies a conditional use case, but no exclusionary guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.