memory_forget_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the protection mechanism for golden rules, the auto-detection behavior of the 'input' parameter, the default values for optional parameters, and the confirmation requirement. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers the essential mutation behavior thoroughly.

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 (purpose, golden rules, Args, Returns, Note) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it's efficiently organized with no wasted text.

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 complexity of a 7-parameter deletion tool with no annotations, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints (golden rules), all parameters, return values, and special behaviors. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return format, which it appropriately references without redundancy.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters in detail. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter, distinguishes between memory_id, query, and input modes, explains default values, and describes the interaction between parameters (e.g., force=True for golden rules). This adds 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Delete memories by ID or semantic search') and distinguishes it from siblings like memory_list_tool (read) and memory_store_tool (create). It identifies the resource (memories) and two distinct deletion modes.

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 when to use different modes (direct deletion vs. search deletion) and when force=True is needed for golden rules. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_edge_forget_tool or memory_validate_tool, which are also deletion-related siblings.

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