memory_forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies idempotent behavior (returns existed=false if key absent) and the explicit_user_intent requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action, then states idempotency and the intent requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters, annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return behavior (existed=false) and the prerequisite (explicit intent), which are the key facts an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, only reiterates the explicit_user_intent requirement. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but adds no extra value.

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 ('Delete a single key from memory') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory_forget_by_tag by explicitly focusing on a single key, and the parameter schema reinforces this.

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 gives clear context: it deletes a single key and requires explicit user intent. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like memory_forget_by_tag or memory_set, but the single-key focus makes the usage context clear. No exclusions are stated, but the intent requirement sets a boundary.

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