memory_forget

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true; the description carries the rest and does so well: deletion is permanent, the agent must restate the memory's content and obtain confirmation first, and soft=true is a one-way retraction that keeps the file while removing it from lists and search. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before firing an irreversible call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage trigger, then the safety-critical permanence/confirmation constraint and the soft alternative. Every sentence changes agent behavior; none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must stand alone, and it covers the decision that matters most (permanent delete vs. one-way soft retraction) plus the confirmation protocol. Gaps remain around id provenance and failure behavior when the id is unknown, but nothing essential to invoking 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%: `soft` is well documented in the schema itself, while `id` has no description anywhere. The description restates soft's effect and adds the one-way/file-kept detail, but gives no guidance on the `id` parameter (format, or that it comes from memory_search/memory_list), so it only partially compensates 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+resource ("Delete a memory by id") and immediately clarifies the two modes of removal, so the agent knows this is the removal tool rather than a search or write tool. However, it never differentiates itself from the overlapping sibling memory_supersede, which also changes memory state, so the sibling-routing clause of a 5 is absent.

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?

"Use when the user asks to forget something" gives an explicit trigger, and the description adds the hard-vs-soft selection condition (soft is for when the user is unsure, per the parameter description). It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at memory_supersede as the alternative for superseded facts.

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