forget_fact

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 soft-delete semantics (still visible via list_facts(include_archived=true)), the effect on default reads (leaves every default read), and a side effect (legacy facts are marked reviewed). It never says explicitly whether the action is reversible/restorable or what the response returns, so it falls just short of 5.

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 core action, followed by visibility behavior and the alternative in order of importance. Three tight sentences with no filler; size is appropriate.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the action does, where the id comes from, downstream visibility, and the relevant alternative. Only reversibility and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 description must compensate; it adds real meaning by telling the agent the `id` originates from get_preferences `facts` or list_facts. It does not state the id format or behavior on an invalid/unknown id, leaving a small gap.

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 clear verb and resource ('Archive a fact') and immediately scopes it as one that 'no longer applies', which distinguishes it from the sibling remember_fact. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For a fact that changed, prefer remember_fact(..., supersedes=[id])', and names where ids come from (get_preferences `facts` or list_facts). Both the alternative and the selecting condition are given, not inferred.

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