memory_forget

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral details: for hard:true it returns a portability copy before permanent deletion, irreversible and cascading; for hard:false it is recoverable and stamps valid_to. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is moderately concise; each sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with general purpose then explains modes. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness, but overall it is well-structured.

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 tool has two modes (soft/hard), no output schema, and requires understanding of recovery and portability, the description covers all aspects: return object shape, behavior differences, and GDPR compliance. It is complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the effect of each mode in detail (e.g., soft-delete stamps valid_to, hard erases after export), which enhances agent understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it is a 'GDPR-grade forget' operation that is additive to memory_delete. It specifies verb 'forget' on resource 'memory', and distinguishes itself from memory_delete by noting it does NOT replace it.

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 explicitly explains when to use soft vs hard delete modes and mentions GDPR context. It implies this tool is for data subject access/erasure, while memory_delete is for regular deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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