Forget a Fact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information not in the annotations: a missing id is reported rather than treated as an error, which tells the agent how to interpret a failed lookup.

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?

Two tight clauses with the action front-loaded and the error-handling note second; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essentials: what is removed, that a miss is reported, and that it is destructive/idempotent. It could say slightly more about what the report contains, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 single 'id' parameter and its role are fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. 'by id' in the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'the exact id of the fact to remove' already present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a fact by id') plus the intent behind it, which is enough to separate it from siblings like remember and recall without opening either schema. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 clause 'to correct or drop something stale' gives a concrete when-to-use context (correction / stale data removal). There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but for a single-purpose delete tool the usage trigger is unambiguous.

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