forget

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove' without clarifying side effects (e.g., irreversibility, impact on related data, or required permissions). The return line mentions 'confirmation or error' but lacks specifics on what the confirmation looks like.

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 concise and structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter and return sections. It is front-loaded and uses minimal words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 (one parameter, delete operation), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details on the output format (the output schema exists but is not referenced) and does not address edge cases like missing IDs or concurrent modifications. This 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'memory_id: The ID of the memory to remove', which adds basic meaning but no extra context like format, examples, or constraints. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not enriching.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' and the resource 'memory by ID', clearly distinguishing this deletion tool from siblings like 'store', 'recall', or 'pin_memory'. No tautology; the name 'forget' is clarified by the action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as checking that the memory exists, or situations where other tools like 'decay_sweep' might be more appropriate.

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