forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes well beyond a simple 'erase' by describing the output as a SIGNED CERTIFICATE, the requirement that a probe battery must all abstain, and that bystanders are left intact. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what to expect and the guarantees provided. Minor gaps: no mention of reversibility, permissions, or side effects, but for an erasure tool these are adequately covered by the explicit guarantees.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the unique deliverable (signed certificate). It packs all essential details — closure, probe battery, bystanders — into a compact, scannable format without any filler words or 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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns (the signed certificate and its guarantees), and the trigger context. There is no missing information an agent would need to decide to call this tool and understand its result. The description is self-sufficient.

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?

The schema has one required string parameter 'subject' with 0% description coverage. The tool description contributes the meaning that 'subject' is the entity to be erased, which is essential. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., name, ID, or any canonical form) or constraints beyond being a string. Given the simplicity of the parameter, the addition of meaning earns a 3, but it could be more explicit.

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 states a specific action (erase), the resource (subject), and the unique guarantee (issue a SIGNED CERTIFICATE with exact closure, probe battery all abstain, bystanders intact). It clearly differentiates from siblings like recall or verify_receipts by explicitly framing this as the artifact for a 'delete me and prove it' request.

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 a clear use case: 'delete me and prove it' requests. It implicitly guides the agent to use this tool when deletion with verifiable proof is needed, and by contrast other tools (remember, recall, etc.) serve other purposes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or discuss when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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