Delete a note or memory fact when the user says forget, remove, or don't remember that; match by exact text or key phrase.
Delete a note or memory fact the user wants forgotten. Use when the user says 'forget', 'delete', 'remove', or 'don't remember that'. Matches by substring — pass the key phrase or exact text from the note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It never states that deletion is irreversible, whether confirmation is expected, whether multiple substring matches are all deleted or just one, or what happens if nothing matches — all critical for an agent deciding to invoke a delete.
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?
Three short lines with zero filler: what it does, when to use it, and how the argument is interpreted. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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?
The output schema covers return values and the trigger/matching guidance is solid. The main remaining gap is the absence of any disclosure about irreversibility or multi-match behavior, which matters for a delete tool with no annotations.
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% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining the matching mode ('Matches by substring') and what to pass ('the key phrase or exact text'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare 'note_text' string in the schema.
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 specific verb and resource ('Delete a note or memory fact') and clarifies scope with the qualifier 'the user wants forgotten'. This implicitly separates it from save_note_tool and recall_memory_tool, though it never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.
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?
Provides concrete trigger phrases ('forget', 'delete', 'remove', 'don't remember that') that map directly to when this tool should fire. It gives clear usage context but no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives for ambiguous cases (e.g., recall vs delete).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.