saihm_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'permanently', 'irreversible', and 'GDPR Art. 17 erasure', which discloses the destructive, non-recoverable nature. It does not cover edge cases like non-existent cellId or authorization requirements, but it transparently conveys the primary behavioral trait.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Permanently crypto-shred') and includes critical caveats (irreversible, GDPR). No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and legal reference. No output schema is needed, and the parameter is explained. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 supply parameter meaning. The phrase 'by cellId' clarifies that the sole parameter is the identifier of the memory to erase, which is more semantic than the schema's bare 'string' type. It does not specify format or validity rules, but the parameter's purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 uses the specific verb 'crypto-shred' and specifies the resource as 'a memory by cellId', clearly indicating a delete/erase operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'saihm_remember' (store), 'saihm_recall' (retrieve), and 'saihm_status' (query state).

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 clearly implies this is the tool for permanent deletion and provides legal context (GDPR Art. 17), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Sibling names reinforce its role, giving clear contextual usage.

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