memory_forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive action and the target ('one persistent memory'), which is essential. But it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether related references are affected, or any confirmation/auth requirements for a destructive operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, resource, scope, and identifier type are all present and immediately readable.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers the essential call. However, it leaves gaps around the outcome/return value, irreversibility, and how this deletion relates to sibling operations like memory_supersede or memory_policy. A brief note on permanence would make it fully complete.

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 only provides the parameter name and type for memory_id with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying it is a 'stable memory ID' for a persistent memory, helping the agent understand what value to supply. It omits format/examples, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the resource ('persistent memory'), and identifies the exact selection criterion ('stable memory ID'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search, memory_read, and memory_supersede, which are not destructive deletion operations.

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 usage context is implied: call this tool when you have a stable memory ID and want to delete that memory. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as memory_supersede for updating/replacing a memory rather than deleting it.

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