ora_human_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool forgets memories but also retains high-impact and frequently recalled ones, implying selective deletion. However, it does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or whether it operates on a per-human basis, leaving significant gaps.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the main action and effect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's effect but could be improved by explicitly stating how the parameters influence memory retention and mentioning the default values. Overall, it is minimally sufficient but not rich in context.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The description aligns with the parameters by mentioning 'high impact' and 'frequently recalled', which correspond to min_impact and min_access, but it does not provide additional context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool forgets old unimportant memories and keeps high-impact and frequently recalled ones. It uses specific verbs and resources, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like ora_human_remember and ora_human_recall by its focus on forgetting.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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