memory_edge_forget_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the destructive nature ('Delete'), outlining three deletion modes with their behaviors, specifying optional filtering parameters, and detailing the return structure. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions beyond the 'error' field, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, modes, args, returns, examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sentences in the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple deletion modes, 6 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage patterns, all parameters with semantics, and the return structure, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 and 6 parameters, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, mapping them to deletion modes, listing valid relation values, and providing default values. The examples further clarify parameter usage, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 the specific action ('Delete edges between memories') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'memory_forget_tool' (which likely deletes memories themselves rather than edges). The verb 'delete' is precise and the resource 'edges (relationships) between memories' is well-defined.

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 provides clear context about three deletion modes, which implicitly guides when to use each approach. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'memory_forget_tool' or 'memory_relate_tool', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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