agentbay_memory_forget

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful nuance by calling the operation an 'archive (soft delete)' rather than a hard delete. It also indicates the scope is the 'local brain,' which suggests local-only memory. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the core operation, the soft-delete nature, the scope, and the ability to handle multiple entries efficiently.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is somewhat thin. It does not explain what happens after archiving, whether entries can be restored, how to pass multiple IDs, or what constitutes a successful operation. The core purpose is clear, but an agent may need more behavioral detail.

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 0% description coverage, and the description's phrase 'one or more memory entries' only hints at the singular knowledgeId versus plural knowledgeIds distinction. It does not clarify whether both parameters can be used together, which one should be preferred, what an ID refers to, or behavior when no ID is provided.

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 names a specific action ('Archive (soft delete)') and a clear resource ('memory entries from your local brain'), and it notes that one or more entries can be handled. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like agentbay_memory_compact, which could also involve memory maintenance.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agentbay_memory_compact or agentbay_memory_verify. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

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