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 so: it discloses soft-delete semantics ('Nothing is deleted'), the observability consequence (show/recall still find them), reversibility (undo=True brings them back), and the return payload (ids changed, unknown names reported). These are exactly the mutation risks an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the alternative route, then the non-destructive guarantee. Every sentence earns its place; the only near-redundancy is the return-value line, which is cheap and reassuring given the destructive-sounding verb 'forget'.

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?

A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage needs the description to explain both side effects and parameter formats, and it does. An output schema already exists, so the extra return-value sentence is surplus but harmless rather than a gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the Args section is doing essential work: 'ids' is documented as one-or-more values with a concrete format example ("12,34"), 'reason' is explained as text displayed next to the entry later, and 'undo' is given meaning rather than just a type. Minor looseness: 'undo' is described in terms of 'superseded entries' even for the no-replacement case, but the intent is recoverable.

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 specific verb (hides) and resource (wrong/obsolete entries with no replacement) and draws the boundary against the supersedes path on 'remember'. An agent can distinguish this from remember, recall, and show without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'If a newer entry replaces them, use remember(..., supersedes=...) instead' names the sibling and the condition that selects it. It also documents the recovery path (undo=True) and that show/recall with include_superseded=True still surface the entries, so the agent knows when this is not a hard delete.

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