forget

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that dry-run is the default, enumerating the exact stores affected (dialog rows, FTS/vector sidecars, dialectic/verbatim/extract/task records, task spool files), and noting that lessons/skills are listed for manual review rather than silently removed. This substantially clarifies the destructive behavior implied by destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 dense but compact: three sentences front-load the purpose, then cover the dry-run flow and the full deletion scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive nature and multi-store effects, the description is highly informative: it covers dry-run behavior, what gets deleted, and manual review for citing lessons/skills. The main remaining gap is the undocumented selector_type parameter, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the dry_run parameter well ('Defaults to dry-run', 'Set dry_run=False to delete') and gives meaning to selector by describing it as a session/cid/thread/dialog UUID. However, the selector_type parameter, including its 'auto' default, is left unexplained.

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 ('Forget') and a clear resource ('one session/cid/thread/dialog UUID'), and the deletion scope is further detailed. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like close_thread or session_end, but the UUID-oriented 'forget' concept is reasonably distinct.

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 explains the dry-run default and how to invoke actual deletion by setting dry_run=False, which is useful practical guidance. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as unlink, close_thread, or session_end.

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