forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses irreversibility ('permanently delete'), which is the key trait for a destructive tool, but says nothing about confirmation requirements, permissions, or behavior on an invalid/nonexistent memory_id.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and irreversibility, with the example parenthetically appended. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a one-parameter destructive tool, the main missing piece is how to source the memory_id and any confirmation/error semantics.

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 0% and the description never mentions memory_id, so it adds no meaning about the identifier's format or where to obtain it (recall/list_memories). The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, preventing a lower score.

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: 'Permanently delete one memory.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from bulk/list siblings like list_memories, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives one triggering example ('when the user asks to be forgotten'), which clarifies intent, but offers no conditions for when not to use it or which sibling to use instead (e.g., recall to find the ID first).

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