Memory Forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility, that dry_run defaults to true, that filter deletes require expect_count to match, and that empty calls are refused. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 paragraphs, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety mechanics following. Every sentence adds distinct information; nothing is restated from the schema verbatim without added context.

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 destructive, 5-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers targeting modes, irreversibility, defaults, the filter guard, and the refusal case. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output schema, and no critical gap remains.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond it by framing dry_run and expect_count as a coordinated pair of "safety catches" and explaining the rationale (preventing an over-broad filter from wiping the collection). It stops short of describing the ids format or filter matching semantics, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete memory chunks") and immediately names the two supported targeting modes (explicit ids vs. agent/source filter). This clearly separates it from siblings like memory_add, memory_search, and memory_update, which are non-destructive or retrieval-oriented.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts: delete by ids, or delete by filter, plus an explicit when-not ("A call with no ids and no filters is refused"). It does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative tool (e.g., memory_update for modifying rather than removing), so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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