sage_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'deprecate', which implies a soft deletion, but does not explain side effects (e.g., is the memory hidden or reversible?), permissions required, or any consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details about return values, deprecation semantics, or integration with sibling tools. It is minimally complete but could better support agent decision-making.

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 100% with both parameters described (memory_id and reason). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, and no improvement is noted.

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 ('Deprecate a memory by ID') and the resource ('memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sage_remember (create) and sage_list (list). However, it does not clarify what 'deprecate' entails (e.g., reversible vs permanent), which slightly limits clarity.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use this when a memory is no longer accurate or relevant'), but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., updating via sage_remember). The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions or context.

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