doc_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the destructive and irreversible nature ('permanently delete') and the scope ('everything derived from it'), which are critical side effects. It does not mention permissions or errors, but it covers the most important behavioral aspects for a deletion tool.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended cleanly, making it easy 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?

For a simple deletion operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the nature of the parameter. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 single parameter doc_id is described as 'Document id returned by doc_ingest', which adds context on how to obtain a valid value. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description reinforces the source, it goes beyond a bare identifier definition.

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 ('permanently delete') and the target ('an ingested document and everything derived from it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_ingest, doc_search, and doc_list by focusing on deletion and its cascading effect.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases: 'Use when a document is stale or was ingested by mistake.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus other document operations, with no ambiguity.

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