knowledge_forget

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature ('permanently deletes ledger entries'), the safety mechanism (confirm_all), and the behavior regarding handoff state (preserved unless clear_handoff is set). It also mentions dry_run for safe preview. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 a vivid metaphor, bullet-pointed modes, and a clear warning. It front-loads the core purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose, modes, parameters, and side effects thoroughly. However, it does not specify the output format after deletion (e.g., how many entries were deleted or a confirmation message). Given the destructive nature, this minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the 100% covered schema: it groups parameters into usage modes (by project, category, age, full reset) and explains the purpose of dry_run, confirm_all, and clear_handoff. This turns schema fields into actionable guidance.

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 'forget' (delete) accumulated knowledge entries, and defines four specific modes (project, category, age, full reset). It is specific about the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling knowledge tools that perform different operations (search, upvote, downvote, set retention).

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 explains when to use the tool ('remove outdated, incorrect, or irrelevant session entries') and details each forget mode with its use case. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or references to alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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