forget

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

With no annotations, the description does useful behavioral work: it discloses tombstoning, derived-state removal across storage layers, audit-trail preservation, and hard deletion for factUid. It does not discuss permissions, confirmation, or broader irreversibility beyond the fact case.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core action and then add the important factUid exception. There is no filler, and the alternative is placed where it matters.

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 rich schema and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the operation's storage effect and the key retractFact alternative. Minor gaps around permissions or confirmation are acceptable because the schema and annotations carry most structural details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including mutual exclusivity and the factUid/retractFact distinction. The description reinforces the ULID-based selection model but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource scope: forget an Episode, Relation, or Fact by ULID. It also distinguishes the factUid hard-delete path from retractFact, so an agent can differentiate this tool from a key sibling without opening schemas.

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 usage context for fact deletion by explicitly naming retractFact as the alternative when history should be kept. It does not fully address when to use forget versus relation-specific siblings such as unrelate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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