memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses that the tool marks a memory as closed but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or impact.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but incomplete. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks necessary details such as parameter meaning or behavioral notes. It could be more informative without adding wordiness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should suffice but does not. It fails to explain the concept of 'closed' in ClawMem, the effect of forgetting, or what happens to the memory afterwards. This inadequacy leaves the agent with incomplete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the sole parameter 'memoryId'. It does not clarify what a valid memory ID is or how to obtain one, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented beyond its type and constraints.

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 'Mark a ClawMem memory as closed' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It indicates a state change, which differentiates it from query tools. However, 'closed' is ambiguous and not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like memory_update, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_update or memory_review. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, making it difficult for an agent to decide correctly.

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