mnemos_forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a soft-delete (archived, not erased), that the fact remains visible in the audit log, and that the operation is not reversible/dismissive. This is strong behavioral context for a mutation-like tool, though it does not specify what happens to related data or the exact response format.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The most important usage constraint ('never call speculatively') is placed at the end but the whole description is compact. It front-loads the core action and the source of the ID.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details beyond its existence, the description covers the key decision points: what the tool does, where the ID comes from, the soft-delete behavior, and when to call it. It could add a note about the audit-log implication more explicitly, but it essentially does. This is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description explains that fact_id is the memory ID as shown by mnemos_list_memories, giving practical meaning. The reason parameter is not individually explained, but the default value 'user_requested' and the overall guidance about explicit user requests imply its purpose; a small gap remains.

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 ('Forget (archive)') and resource ('a specific memory by its ID'), and even names the sibling tool mnemos_list_memories as the source of IDs, distinguishing it from other mnemos tools. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user explicitly asks to forget something, and explicitly warns against speculative calls. It also explains the soft-delete behavior and audit-log visibility, which helps an agent decide when this is appropriate.

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