forget_memory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the deletion is a commit (recoverable), knowledge-graph links are removed, and the page stays in history. This goes beyond a raw 'delete' statement and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage and side effects. No trivial words or 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?

For a destructive tool with existing schema and output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and important behavioral consequences. It is complete enough to guide correct invocation without ambiguity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description doesn't add further parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because schema provides the necessary details.

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 (delete) and resource (one memory from the user's wiki), and notes it's recorded as a delete commit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_memory, memorize, and recall.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks to forget or delete a memory,' providing a crisp trigger condition. It also describes the restoration path via mind_revert, effectively guiding the agent on when to use and when to consider that alternative.

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