memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses there is no automated fuzzy matching, that the agent must check evidence itself, that unrelated content is preserved, and crucially that it 'returns instructions for your own editing tools' and 'never writes files'. It omits permissions, concurrency, or reversibility details, but the non-destructive, advisory nature is clearly established.

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?

Two dense sentences that lead with the action and the trigger before the mechanics. Every clause carries information (no fuzzy matching, returns instructions, preserves content), though the second sentence stacks several clauses and could be split for readability.

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 two-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important unknowns: what it returns ('instructions for your own editing tools'), that it is advisory rather than destructive, and that unrelated content is safe. Only minor gaps remain around cwd semantics and error behavior.

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 already 100% for both parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the 'describe the facts in natural language' contract for the description parameter but adds no syntax or format guidance for cwd. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete action on a concrete resource ('Correct or remove stored facts') and the trigger condition. However, the name says 'forget' while the description broadens the scope to 'correct', and it later reveals it does not actually delete anything — creating a slight mismatch an agent must reconcile. Sibling tools memory_save/memory_review are not explicitly contrasted.

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 gives clear triggering conditions ('when evidence shows they are wrong, superseded, or obsolete') and an imperative ('promptly'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name the alternatives (memory_save, memory_review) or state when NOT to use it, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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