forget_fact

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

The annotation already indicates 'destructiveHint: true', and the description reinforces this by stating 'Permanently delete'. It adds the behavioral trait that deletion is irreversible. This aligns with annotations and provides additional context about permanence, which is valuable for an AI agent considering consequences.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and effectively explain the parameter source. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (delete one fact) and the presence of output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and how to identify the fact. It could mention error handling (e.g., if fact_id doesn't exist), but that is minor. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for 'fact_id', but the description compensates by explaining that the ID is 'returned by `remember_fact` or `search_knowledge`'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, telling the agent where to obtain the parameter value, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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 states 'Permanently delete one fact from the workspace knowledge memory.' It clearly specifies the verb (delete) and resource (fact from knowledge memory). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember_fact' (add) and 'search_knowledge' (search), making it clear this is the deletion counterpart.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to delete a specific fact. It explicitly tells the agent that the 'fact_id' should come from 'remember_fact' or 'search_knowledge', offering guidance on parameter source. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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