forget_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation affects 'local' memory rather than a remote/shared store, but it omits whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the component is not in the pending list, and whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its scope with no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse for a tool with no annotations backing it up.

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 one-parameter mutation this is roughly adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves edge-case and effect behavior undocumented.

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 0% for the single componentName parameter, so the schema supplies only type and length bounds. The description implies the argument identifies a component within pending memory but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., name vs. identifier) beyond that inference.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('Remove a component') and scopes it to 'local pending-component memory,' which separates it from unrelated siblings like get_component or list_components. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling remember_component, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name that this is the inverse of remember_component and only applies to items still pending.

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