forgetDelete a saved memory item by its ID to remove it permanently across devices. Re-creatable if needed, with no confirmation required.
Delete a saved Memory item by its id (from list_memory). Records a cross-device delete so it doesn’t come back. Minor + re-creatable (you can remember it again), so no confirm needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the memory item id (from list_memory) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it records a cross-device delete, prevents the memory from coming back, and notes that the operation is minor and re-creatable, so no confirmation is needed. This gives the agent a strong safety and side-effect picture.
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 front-loaded: the primary action is stated first, followed by the most important behavioral implications and a rationale for not requiring confirmation. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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?
The description is complete for a single-parameter destructive tool: it identifies the target, the id source, the cross-device effect, durability of the deletion, and the re-creatable nature. Given the rich annotations and simple schema, nothing essential is missing.
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 already fully documents the sole parameter 'id' as 'the memory item id (from list_memory)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats this source but adds no new parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'saved Memory item', and specifies the identifier source ('by its id (from list_memory)'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from generic delete tools and related memory tools like remember and list_memory.
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 makes clear this tool is for deleting a specific saved memory using the id obtained from list_memory. It gives enough context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternative memory tools like tidy_memory or remember for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.