Forget a memory entry

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

No annotations are present, so the description should carry the full burden. It does state the destructive effect ('Delete one memory row') and an important side effect ('sync the search index'), which is useful. However, it does not mention permanence, permission requirements, or what happens if type is omitted, leaving real behavioral gaps 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action and side effect are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the one essential disambiguation about the type parameter. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation, the side effect, and the type-origin mapping needed to avoid mistakes. It does not describe permanence or fallback behavior when type is unknown, but those are minor gaps for such a compact interface.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping source tools to type values ('ids from remember are preference ids, from save_lesson are lesson ids'), which is not explicit in the schema and directly improves correct parameter selection.

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') and names the exact resource ('memory row') plus the row kinds (preference, lesson, interaction), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It also adds 'sync the search index', making the scope concrete. The distinction from siblings like update_memory or merge_memory is clear without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 context for use is implied: delete a memory row when you want to remove it. The description gives parameter-level guidance ('Pass type when you know it') but never names an alternative tool or says when not to use this one, so an agent has to infer the boundary against siblings such as update_memory or import_memory.

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