forget

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

The description declares 'DESTRUCTIVE' and lists the deletion criteria, which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It adds value by explaining what gets deleted (memories matching criteria) and provides examples of the older_than format. The idempotentHint is slightly contradicted by the fact that repeated calls with different criteria could delete different sets, but the description's criteria listing partially mitigates this.

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 sentences: a clear purpose statement and a concise list of criteria. Every word is meaningful, and the critical warning 'DESTRUCTIVE' is front-loaded. No waste.

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 has 5 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential delete-by criteria and the destructive nature. It could be improved by noting that all parameters are optional and might combine (e.g., AND logic), but the completeness is high for a deletion tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the delete-by options and providing the 'older_than' format examples (1d, 7d, 30d, 1y), which the schema also describes. It does not add new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'memories', and lists the specific criteria for deletion. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix and the list of delete-by options distinguish it from sibling tools like 'recall' (retrieval) and 'search' (non-destructive filtering).

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 explicitly lists the criteria for deletion (memory_id, memory_type, tags, older_than), which guides when to use each parameter. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., preferring 'clean' for cleanup), but the list of criteria and the destructive warning provide clear usage context.

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