memory_forget

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

The tool is marked destructiveHint=true, and the description mentions 'purge', which implies deletion. However, it does not explicitly state that purged records are permanently removed, that archived records are moved to a different location, or that the operation might affect linked data. The annotations cover the core destructive nature, but the description adds limited behavioral detail beyond the obvious archive/purge actions.

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 concise and well-structured, using exactly two sentences. The first states the primary action and conditions, the second summarizes the benefit. No unnecessary words or redundant explanations are present; every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While the description is clear about the operation, it lacks broader context. It does not explain how this tool fits into the memory management lifecycle, nor does it mention what happens after archiving (e.g., whether archived records are still queryable). Given the existence of sibling tools like memory_delete and memory_consolidate, the description could benefit from clarifying the distinction between this automated retention task and those manual/alternative operations. The low overall complexity keeps this from being a serious gap, but the description is not fully complete on its own.

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 single parameter, dry_run, has a clear description ('If true, only show what would be affected') that goes beyond the boolean type to explain its effect on the tool's behavior. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and how to use it, making the description self-sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 primary purpose: applying a retention policy that archives stale records and purges very old archived records. The verbs 'archive' and 'purge' are specific, and the condition thresholds (>180d, >365d) provide concrete scope. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of intent.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like memory_delete or memory_consolidate. While it implies use for routine memory maintenance ('Keeps memory clean'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over a direct delete or when not to use it (e.g., if only a single record needs removal). The purpose is clear, but usage boundaries are not spelled out.

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