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 states the tool performs deletion or modification, indicating a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage instruction. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance). Overall, it's efficient and clear.

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 complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like safety, response format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('table' and 'description'). The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'plain English' for the 'description' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete or modify existing memories.' It specifies the verb ('Delete or modify') and resource ('existing memories'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember' beyond the action, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance: 'Describe what you want to forget or change in plain English.' It implies usage for memory modification but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'recall' for retrieval), or exclusions. This lack of context leaves gaps in practical application.

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