Forget Grocery Memory

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful detail: omitting label wipes all account-level shopping memory, while order history and cart remain untouched. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the exact destructive scope.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the action, conditional behavior, and explicit non-effects without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter destructive tool, the description fully covers scope, conditional behavior, and boundaries. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the optional 'label' identifies a named product preference, and its omission triggers a broader delete-all behavior. It adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 a specific verb ('Forget') and resource ('named product preference' or 'all shopping memory'), and explicitly contrasts with cart/order history tools. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_shopping_memory and remember_product.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: forget a single named preference or all shopping memory when label is omitted. It also states what the tool does not affect, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cart/order modifications.

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