memory_forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains behavior: returns instructions for the agent to execute, uses fuzzy matching, leaves other facts intact, and warns about consequences of stale memory. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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 moderately long but well-structured: core action first, then triggers, then behavioral context, then return value. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description explains the tool's return (instructions) and overall process. It covers triggers, proactive use, and warns about stale memory, making it complete for a tool with only two parameters and high schema coverage.

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 covers all parameters (100%), but the description adds value by clarifying that matching is fuzzy and describing the removal in natural language. The cwd parameter is already well-described in the 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The description clearly states the tool removes outdated or wrong facts from AGENTS.md, with a specific verb (remove) and resource (nearest AGENTS.md). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'memory_save' by focusing on forgetting.

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?

Explicitly instructs proactive calling upon noticing stale facts, lists multiple triggers, and directs the agent to use its own tools for the actual removal. Provides clear when-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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