forget_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool deletes a memory, making destruction obvious, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or scoped in any way. The description lacks depth about consequences beyond the basic verb.

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 extremely concise: a single leading sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every word earns its place, and the action is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter delete, the description provides the core operation and parameter meaning. However, the lack of any behavioral caveats (e.g., irreversibility) and the absence of guidance on sourcing a memory ID make it only partially complete. The presence of an output schema lightens the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. 'memory_id: The ID of the memory to delete' adds only marginal meaning over the parameter name and integer type; it does not explain where the ID comes from (e.g., recall_memories) or what happens if an invalid or nonexistent ID is provided.

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 begins with 'Delete a memory' — a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like recall_memories, save_memory, and update_memory, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 phrase 'that's no longer relevant' provides a condition for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as update_memory for memories that still matter but need modification.

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