ddflow_memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part: it discloses that the memory is NOT deleted but 'kept, with the reason', which directly counters what the name 'forget' implies. It also explains the downstream consequence ('stops the next agent re-learning X'). It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the retention rule, then the alternative. The quoted example phrase is compact and earns its place by conveying intent. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the non-obvious semantics (soft invalidation, reason retained, alternative tool). Remaining gaps — reversibility and what is returned — are minor given the schema already documents all parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the 'reason' parameter by explaining its purpose and giving a model phrasing ('we thought X until Y' is what stops the next agent re-learning X). The 'id' parameter is left to the schema.

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 conveys a specific action on a specific resource — invalidating a stored memory — via the vivid phrasing 'Stop believing a memory that is no longer true', and it names the sibling ddflow_memory_add for the correction case. It never literally says the memory is marked invalid rather than deleted by the tool name alone, but the surrounding text resolves that. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings, though it leans on metaphor rather than a plain verb+resource statement.

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?

It states the condition for use ('a memory that is no longer true') and explicitly routes the alternative case to ddflow_memory_add for correcting a fact. That is a clear when-to-use plus named alternative, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' (e.g. use ddflow_memory_list first, or what to do if the id is unknown).

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