forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool deletes a memory, but fails to mention whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it affects related data. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. The core verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this short description may not fully help an agent understand expected behavior, return values, error cases, or side effects like irrevocable memory removal. More context is needed for a deletion tool.

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 clarify the parameters. 'Delete a memory by id' does explain that 'id' is the memory's identifier, but it does not specify where the id comes from or any validation/format constraints beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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 'Delete a memory by id' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the target resource (a memory) along with the key lookup method (by id). It does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools, but the verb-resource pair is specific enough to avoid confusion with remember, recall, or list_pending.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'reject' or 'approve'. The description only states what it does, not which scenarios call for deleting a memory or what precedes this action (e.g., getting a valid id via list_pending/recall).

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