akb_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Delete', which implies a destructive action, but lacks details on idempotency, return behavior, error handling, or consequences (e.g., whether successful deletion confirms, or if the ID must exist).

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include essential behavioral details without losing efficiency.

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 complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain key aspects like whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to related data, or how to verify success. More context would be needed for safe usage.

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% (the parameter 'memory_id' is described as 'Memory ID to delete'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Delete', the resource 'memory', and the specific scope 'by its ID'. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like akb_delete (which may target other resources) and akb_recall (retrieval).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as akb_delete, akb_delete_file, or akb_delete_vault. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for using this specific deletion operation.

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