memory_forget

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

Even though annotations already show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: the deletion is soft, retrieval-only scope, history and database content are retained, and there is a revision-based precondition. This significantly goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the core operation is front-loaded, and the two caveats (not secure erasure, read revision first) are each essential. Every sentence carries load.

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 simple two-parameter mutation without an output schema, the description covers the operation, retention behavior, and the required revision workflow. It stops short of describing the result/return value or what happens on a revision mismatch, but those are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for expected_revision by explaining that the current revision must be read from history before calling the tool, linking it to the parameter. It doesn't explicitly restate memory_id, but the name plus 'one memory' is self-explanatory; the marginal gap prevents a 5.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Soft-delete one memory from retrieval,' which clearly names the verb and resource. The explicit distinction from secure erasure ('This is NOT secure erasure') differentiates it from any hard-delete variant and from sibling update/search tools.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: read the current revision via history before forgetting, which tells the agent the correct sequencing. The 'NOT secure erasure' warning provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition, though it does not name alternative tools (e.g., memory_update) for other intents.

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