vrm_forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying mutation/destructive), but doesn't clarify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'hardDelete' parameter suggests deletion behavior varies, but the description doesn't explain this. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action ('Manually delete') immediately. Every word earns its place - 'Manually' distinguishes from automatic deletion, 'delete' specifies the action, 'a memory' identifies the resource, and 'by ID' indicates the key parameter. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 deletion tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory' in this system, whether deletion affects related data, what confirmation or response to expect, or the implications of the hardDelete parameter. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID' which maps to the memoryId parameter, but doesn't explain the UUID format requirement. It completely ignores the 'hardDelete' parameter and its default value (true), leaving the agent to guess what this boolean controls. The description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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 action ('Manually delete') and target resource ('a memory by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, retrieve, search, store) by focusing on deletion rather than querying or storage operations. However, it doesn't specify what type of memory system this operates on or the broader context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to know a memory ID first), when deletion is appropriate versus other operations, or what happens after deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling tools alone.

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