memory_forget

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the memory layer and index are deleted synchronously, ensuring consistency. However, with no annotations at all, it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to related feedback/review data.

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?

The description is one short sentence, efficient and easy to scan. The parenthetical adds a relevant operational detail without bloating the text, though a bit more context could be added.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not mention irreversibility, how to retrieve memory_id, or any side effects on related data, leaving an agent to guess critical usage constraints.

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 does not mention memory_id at all. It simply says 'delete a memory' without explaining that the memory_id parameter identifies the target or how to obtain it, leaving the schema to bear all 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 uses a specific verb '删除' (delete) and a clear resource ('一条记忆' - one memory), and the parenthetical clarifies it removes both the memory layer and its index. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_search or memory_wm_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that this is for permanent removal of a specific memory, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a memory_id from memory_search or memory_review_list.

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