aim_memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that entities are deleted from the knowledge graph and that associated links are also removed. It discusses location override and auto-detection. However, it does not mention irreversibility or return status, which would enhance transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for database selection and location override, and includes four examples. While it is a bit lengthy, the information is organized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 description covers the operation and parameter details thoroughly but lacks information about the return value or what happens after deletion (e.g., success/failure reporting). Given no output schema, additional context on the outcome would improve completeness for an agent.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema, and the description adds significant value: context usage is clarified (optional, for specific contexts), location parameter includes explanation of enum values and override behavior, and entityNames is shown in examples with appropriate syntax. The description goes beyond schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'forget' and resource 'memories', clearly indicating deletion. It differentiates from siblings like aim_memory_store, aim_memory_get, and aim_memory_remove_facts by specifying that it removes both memories and their associated links.

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 when to use the tool with database selection methods (context, location override) and provides multiple examples covering different scenarios (default, work database, global location, etc.). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context and examples sufficiently guide usage.

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