Forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a destructive operation via 'Remove', but does not disclose permanence, reversibility, failure behavior, or any side effects. The parameter details add some context, but behavioral transparency remains minimal for a mutation 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?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-line purpose statement and a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: what to remove and how to identify it. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The lack of alternative-selection guidance is the only notable gap, though it is more a usage-guideline concern.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by enumerating valid memory_type values ('semantic', 'episodic', 'lesson') and clarifying that identifier is a key or ID number depending on type. This is exactly the semantic content an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a memory') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from Remember (add), Recall (retrieve), and MemoryStats (inspect), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling PruneMemory, which also removes memories.

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 given on when to use Forget versus PruneMemory or other siblings. The description explains parameters but provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats.

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