forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds meaningful authorization context: only the agent's own agent-scope memories can be deleted. It stops short of describing irreversibility, failure modes, or what happens to dependent data, but it transparently discloses the key access constraint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the critical scope restriction. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential authorization scope. It does not mention return values or post-deletion behavior, but with no output schema and clear annotations, it is nearly complete.

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 single memory_id parameter is already documented as the UUID of the memory to delete. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a memory entry), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'remember'. However, it does not name or contrast with any adjacent tool behavior beyond the scope note, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides an implicit condition for use ('Agents can only delete their own agent-scope memories'), which helps the agent know when the tool is applicable. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_memory or recall, leaving usage context only partially covered.

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