Forget a memory

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation, the case-insensitive substring matching behavior, and the broad-scope risk of short queries. This level of warning is critical for a destructive delete 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 compact and dense, front-loading the critical warning 'DESTRUCTIVE' before any other detail. Every sentence adds operational value, including when to use the tool, how to phrase the query, and what to check beforehand.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the low parameter count, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, matching semantics, irreversibility, risk, usage conditions, and a pre-check alternative. An agent is sufficiently prepared to avoid dangerous misuse.

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 already documents the query parameter completely (100% coverage), but the description adds important semantic detail: the query is matched as a case-insensitive substring against memory content, not as a semantic match or single-item identifier. This extra context meaningfully improves the agent's understanding of the parameter.

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 action: deletes every memory whose content contains a case-insensitive substring, and explicitly distinguishes this from semantic or single-item delete. This differentiates the tool from siblings like memory_search and memory_add without ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance: only after user correction of a stored fact or explicit request to forget. It also warns of broad deletion risk, recommends using a long distinctive phrase, and suggests checking memory_state first when uncertain, giving the agent concrete decision-making guidance.

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