forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (removal) without detailing side effects, required permissions, what happens if the entity or observation does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is minimally informative.

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 of 11 words that efficiently conveys the core action. It wastes no words, though it could incorporate a bit more contextual detail without becoming verbose. Still, it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, both documented, no output schema), the description combined with the schema covers the basic operation. However, it lacks behavioral details such as success/failure behavior or exact match requirements, which are partially inferred from the schema but not explicitly stated in the description.

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% with both parameters already described (entityName and observation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra constraints, formats, or usage hints are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific observation from an entity in the memory graph'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' (add) and 'recall' (retrieve), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as 'remember' or 'link'. It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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