forget

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

The description transparently discloses the side effects: marks as no longer current, excluded from recall, retains the row, and is reversible. It also specifies the return values. No annotations contradict these behaviors.

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 concise but includes an unnecessary analogy ('like consolidation and the forgetting sweep already do') that slightly elongates it without adding critical guidance. Nonetheless, it is structured logically and remains focused.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides essential return values and clarifies the tool's scope by noting the unavailability of permanent purge. It lacks potential error handling details, but the core usage context is sufficiently covered.

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 parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description only says 'by id' without detailing the meaning, constraints, or possible values beyond implying it is a memory identifier. This minimal elaboration does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema description.

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 tool's action: soft-delete a memory by id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' (for reading) and 'remember' (for creating) by explicitly indicating that the memory is marked no longer current and excluded from recall.

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 explains when to use this tool (when a memory should be soft-deleted) and provides context by mentioning that permanent purge is an admin-only CLI operation, thereby guiding the agent away from attempting permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'link' or other alternatives, so a small deduction.

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