chronomem_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that the fact becomes unretrievable while audit logs are preserved. However, it omits other important traits for a mutation tool, such as reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the fact is already expired.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key behavioral effect without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and audit-preservation behavior. It still lacks sibling differentiation and operational details like reversibility or permissions, which an agent would need in this memory-management context.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'fact_id' parameter, so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb pair ('Expire/invalidate') and resource ('a fact'), and adds the retrieval effect. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'chronomem_supersede', which may also invalidate or replace facts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'chronomem_supersede' or 'chronomem_contradictions'. The description implies a use case but leaves the agent to infer it from the purpose alone.

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