forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the destructive scope and that data is removed from relational, graph, and vector databases, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent/recoverable, whether permissions are required, and what happens if no targeting argument is supplied.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences plus a concise scope bullet. Every phrase adds value, with no repetition of schema fields or filler content.

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 has four optional parameters and no annotations, so a robust description should clarify edge cases like no-argument invocation, argument conflicts, and irreversible consequences. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but significant semantic guidance is still 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the targeting options (single item, dataset by name or id, everything) but adds no new parameter-specific semantics; for example, it does not clarify precedence or mutual exclusivity beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening sentence 'Delete data from memory' uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope bullet (single item, dataset, or everything) clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remember, recall, and search_tools. It also states the underlying stores affected, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 clearly implies this is the deletion counterpart to remember and is appropriate whenever stored data must be removed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives for non-destructive operations, or give guidance about argument exclusivity and fallback behavior.

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