OpenReflex

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Forget experience

forget_experience

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a specific past task from the project's memory to erase sensitive or incorrect lessons, permanently removing its executions, tool calls, and experience nodes from the local Experience Graph.

Instructions

Delete one past task from this project's memory. Returns: one line listing what was removed (task, executions, tool calls, outcomes, experience, lessons), or 'Not forgotten' when confirm is false. Use when: the user explicitly asks to forget a specific past task, for example one that involved sensitive work or taught a wrong lesson. Never call it on your own initiative. Not for: deleting everything; the user runs openreflex forget --yes for that. Side effects: permanently removes that task's nodes from the local Experience Graph; other tasks are untouched. Touches no project files. Errors: 'Unknown experience id' for an id that does not exist, is not an experience, or was already forgotten; a 'not enabled' message until the project is approved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	true only when the user has explicitly asked to forget this task; with false (the default) nothing is deleted.
`experience_id`	Yes	The experience id to delete, as returned by search_experience; starts with 'exp-'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.1Sep 19, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / experience_id / maxLength
```
Added value: +160
```
- addedInput schema / properties / experience_id / minLength
```
Added value: +5
```
- addedInput schema / properties / experience_id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^exp-"
```
Addedv0.3.2Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully enriches both: it specifies the exact destruction scope ('that task's nodes from the local Experience Graph; other tasks are untouched'), asserts side-effect boundaries ('Touches no project files'), states permanence ('permanently removes'), enumerates error modes ('Unknown experience id' for non-existent/already-forgotten; 'not enabled' until project approval), and discloses the confirm=false no-op path via the 'Not forgotten' return. All of this goes well beyond the structured annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured into clearly labeled sections (Returns, Use when, Not for, Side effects, Errors) with the core action front-loaded. Every section earns its place for a permanently destructive tool, and the labels make it highly scannable. Slight redundancy exists between 'Never call it on your own initiative' and confirm's schema description, keeping it just shy of maximal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a permanently destructive tool, the description covers the deletion target, return format in both confirm states, every error condition including the approval prerequisite ('not enabled' until project approved), the side-effect boundary, and the user-consent requirement. With an output schema also present to carry return-structure detail, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — experience_id is documented with its 'exp-' pattern and source (returned by search_experience), and confirm with its guardrail semantics ('true only when the user has explicitly asked'). The description reinforces confirm's default-false behavior through the 'Not forgotten' return case but does not materially extend the schema's parameter explanations. The 100%-coverage baseline of 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with 'Delete one past task from this project's memory' — a specific verb, a specific resource, and an explicit scope ('one'). The 'Not for: deleting everything' clause further carves out the boundary versus bulk deletion, and the resource ('past task', 'experience graph nodes') distinguishes it from record_outcome, search_experience, and other siblings. No tautology; the title 'Forget experience' is expanded into an operational statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit triggering condition ('Use when: the user explicitly asks to forget a specific past task') with a concrete example ('sensitive work or taught a wrong lesson'), an absolute exclusion ('Never call it on your own initiative'), and a named alternative for the excluded case (user runs `openreflex forget --yes`). This is complete routing guidance with no inference required.

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

Deploy Server