forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool deletes and that a query deletes all matches (via schema description). However, it omits important traits like irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects on related data. For a destructive operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that leads with the core action. There is no redundant information, and it efficiently conveys the two invocation modes.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), but the description does not clarify interaction between id and query (e.g., exclusive or additive), nor does it mention return behavior. While not critical for a basic delete, the lack of such details leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 only 50% (query has a description, id does not). The description partially compensates by clarifying that id is an identifier and query is an FTS match, but it does not specify id format or FTS syntax. It adds meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('memory'), and two distinct methods (by id or by FTS content match). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like remember, recall, and list_memories, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the destructive nature is implied by 'Delete', it does not explicitly state conditions like 'use when you want to permanently remove a memory' or warn against using it for reversible operations. Sibling tools exist for creation and retrieval, but no routing logic is given.

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