mem_forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the deletion action and the need for a valid ID from search, but fails to mention potential behaviors like what happens if the ID does not exist or if the operation is irreversible.

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 very concise, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema (implied from context signals), the description covers the essential aspects: what, when, and how. It could be improved by noting error behavior for nonexistent IDs.

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%, but the description explains the parameter memory_id as 'The ID of the memory to delete (shown in search results),' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Delete a memory by ID,' a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mem_search, mem_recall, mem_save, and mem_ingest by focusing on deletion.

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 says 'Use this to remove stale, wrong, or duplicate memories' and advises to 'Find the ID via mem_search first, then pass it here.' This provides clear context on when and how to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it.

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