forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Delete specific memory entries' and 'Do not auto-forget'; it fails to mention that deletion is permanent, requires confirm=true, or that reject mode creates a tombstone. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It delivers the core action and usage constraint 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?

The tool is complex with nested filters, reject/confirm semantics, and no output schema. The description is minimally viable but omits critical distinctions like delete vs reject and the permanent/destructive nature. The schema helps, but the description alone would not fully orient an agent.

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 description coverage is 80% and each parameter already has a detailed description (id, filter, reason, reject, confirm). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 deletes specific memory entries, providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall, search, and knowledge_delete.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('only when the user requests a deletion') and when not to ('Do not auto-forget'). This is strong, unambiguous usage guidance even though it doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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