forget

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a soft delete, moves memory to trash, and can be restored, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., on links or consolidation status) and what the API returns.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the usage context, and the third provides an alternative. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage context, soft-delete behavior, and restoration. It lacks parameter-level guidance and return expectations, but these are less critical for this simple action.

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?

The schema has one 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description never mentions 'id' or clarifies that it is the identifier of the memory to forget, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name and 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?

The description clearly states the action ('soft-delete'), the target ('a memory'), and the mechanism ('move it to trash'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'correct' by noting when each should be used.

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 a clear 'when to use' condition: 'when a memory is no longer needed and you want it excluded from search'. It also explicitly warns against using it for corrections and directs the agent to 'correct' instead, providing an alternative.

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