zelinqa_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it clarifies this does NOT delete server data and warns that the host must keep the session ID outside the model to resume. It omits any auth/permission requirements, which is a minor gap for a mutation-flavored memory 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping caveat. Every sentence carries a distinct, necessary fact: what is released, what is not deleted, and what the host must retain.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: local-only release, no server deletion, and the external session-ID requirement. It is nearly complete, with only auth/permission behavior left unstated.

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% with a single parameter ('conversation'), so the schema already explains the naming constraint and the no-personal-data rule. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('a finished conversation from this process's memory'), making the effect on local memory distinct from server data. It is clearly separable from siblings like zelinqa_start, zelinqa_next_question, and zelinqa_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Release a finished conversation' implies the trigger condition (the conversation is complete), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to or from sibling tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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