forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavior: 'A missing id is reported, not an error', and mentions it reports whether removal occurred. However, it doesn't address permanence, side effects, or error output format for a destructive operation.

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 brief, information-dense sentences. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter tool, the description plus schema cover core use, error behavior, and removal reporting. No output schema exists, but the 'reports whether' statement gives sufficient guidance. A bit more on side effects or return format would improve completeness, but it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'by id' and the schema already documents the 'reports whether a fact was actually removed' behavior, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Remove a fact by id'. It also adds context on why ('to correct or drop something stale'), and the sibling set (remember, recall) makes the distinct purpose clear.

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 gives clear usage context with 'to correct or drop something stale', implying when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intention is fairly clear.

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