forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the parent_id resolution mechanism, the 100-item scan window limitation, and the possibility of unmatched IDs if the memory was already deleted or outside the window. It also advises verification, making the deletion process and its potential failure modes transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides procedural details and caveats. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, prerequisites, and failure/verification guidance. No waste or redundancy, making it easily digestible for an AI agent.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers all necessary context: deletion request, identification of targets, resolution mechanics, limitations, and post-deletion verification. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly and to anticipate outcomes.

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's descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including detailed semantics for memory_ids (memory id vs. parent_id, resolution failure behavior). The description adds little new parameter-level meaning; it reinforces the workflow but relies on the schema for exact semantics. Baselines at 3 given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Request deletion of specific memories from a space.' It uses a specific verb ('request deletion') and resource ('memories'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to fetch_history or recall for identification, and fetch_history for verification. This makes it unambiguous which tool to use for deletion.

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 explicit workflow guidance: use fetch_history or recall to identify targets first, and verify deletion afterwards with fetch_history. It also explains when IDs may remain unmatched, giving users a clear expectation of when to retry or confirm. This goes beyond simple purpose and offers actionable alternatives.

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