agentbay_memory_forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions two operations (archive and permanent delete) but does not explain the implications: e.g., whether archived entries can be restored, whether hard delete is irreversible, or what permissions are required. The description omits side effects, making behavioral expectations unclear.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core functionality and the two modes. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Archive' and parenthetical clarification, with no redundant words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and annotations, the description is too brief for a tool with four parameters. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or valid parameter combinations. For a destructive operation, it should at least warn that hard delete is irreversible or specify prerequisites. The description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds context that the tool can archive or permanently delete, which clarifies the overall action but does not detail parameter interactions (e.g., whether both knowledgeId and knowledgeIds can be provided). The schema descriptions are minimal, but the description does not significantly enhance them, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 performs two distinct actions: archiving (soft delete) and permanent deletion of memory entries. It uses specific verbs ('Archive' and 'permanently delete') and identifies the resource ('memory entries'), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools like agentbay_memory_store or agentbay_memory_recall, this tool uniquely handles deletion, so it is well-differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to choose soft delete over hard delete. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the memory must exist or be in a certain state. Users must infer usage from the name and parameter descriptions alone, which is insufficient.

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