forget_memory

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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that history snapshots and orphaned compliance rows are purged, that only a content-hash audit entry remains, that the operation is irreversible, that Must-priority memories are excluded unless allow_must=true, and that auth is per-agent API key with no admin tier at the MCP layer.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: scope, sibling contrast, destructive effects, workflow, and auth in a tight block. Slightly long with some redundancy against schema descriptions (dry_run default, allow_must) but every sentence carries operational weight.

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?

Covers the critical concerns for a destructive, 12-param, irreversible tool with no output schema: what gets destroyed, irreversibility, preview workflow, exclusion of Must memories, and auth. Return-value shape is not explained, but for a preview/execute purge tool the key facts are present.

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; the description adds value by grouping bulk criteria (namespace/namespace_prefix/source_agent_id/tag/memory_type/before_days), flagging memory_id as mutually exclusive with the criteria, and explaining the dry_run default and allow_must override. Marginal gain over schema because these details are largely restated.

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?

States a specific verb (permanently erase / purge), the resource (one memory by id or a bulk set), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling delete_memory. An agent can distinguish it from delete_memory without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection criteria (single id vs bulk criteria fields), names the alternative (delete_memory) and how this differs, and prescribes a two-step workflow (preview with dry_run, then execute). No inference required.

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