forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive nature, that the entry stops influencing future recall, that `reason` goes to the audit trail, and that the deleted value is never returned. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured, with a bold DESTRUCTIVE warning and short paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place, front-loading the purpose and then adding necessary details.

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?

The description covers essential aspects: destructive behavior, audit trail, and the alternative tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It leaves out edge-case behavior (e.g., key not found) but overall is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `reason` (required, audit trail) and implicitly clarifies `key` (the memory to remove). However, it says nothing about `idempotency_key` or `expected_version` beyond their schema defaults. Partial compensation, adequate but with gaps.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a memory from active recall' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `revise` by explicitly saying 'To correct a memory rather than remove it, use revise.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for state that is genuinely obsolete.' It also names an alternative (`revise`) and explains when not to use it (when correcting rather than removing), satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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