KIROK_forget

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'destructive and cannot be undone,' which clearly conveys the irreversible nature of the operation, though it doesn't detail other potential side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences followed by a clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the destructive warning is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects), and the presence of an output schema (not needing return value description), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'memory_id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal title. Schema coverage is 0% but the description fully compensates for the single parameter.

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 ('Delete a specific memory by its ID') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like KIROK_delete_bank (delete entire bank) and KIROK_clear_bank (clear/remove all).

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 warns the operation is destructive and irreversible, implying careful use, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like KIROK_delete_bank or KIROK_clear_bank.

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