memory_forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds materially more: deletion is permanent, the agent must restate content and obtain confirmation first, and soft=true produces a one-way retraction (out of lists/search, file retained, not reversible without re-saving). These are workflow and irreversibility details annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the sibling routing, then the safety workflow, then the soft-mode variant. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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?

For a 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, alternative, irreversibility, a required confirmation step, and the soft-retraction variant. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 50% (the `id` param has no schema description), so the description carries part of the burden; it does explain `soft` semantics in prose (hidden, retracted, file kept, one-way). The `id` parameter itself gets no format or sourcing detail, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 memory by id") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, memory_supersede, which handles the replace-not-delete case. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use when the user asks to forget something") plus the alternative and the condition that selects it ("To replace an outdated fact with a corrected one instead of deleting it, use memory_supersede"). It also advises offering soft mode when the user is unsure, which is real routing guidance.

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