Forget a memory entry

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation destroys a row and has a side effect ('sync the search index'), but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the id does not exist.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core delete semantics and side effect are front-loaded before the optional-parameter advice.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key side effect, and parameter sourcing. It could add error/not-found behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and already explains why type matters across tables, but the description adds genuinely new mapping information: 'ids from remember are preference ids, from save_lesson are lesson ids'. That source-to-type mapping is not derivable from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one memory row ... by id') and names the entity types it can target, which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like recall and update_memory. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the goal is modification instead of deletion, so it does not reach full sibling routing.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for the optional parameter ('Pass type when you know it') and explains where the ids come from. It never states when to prefer forget over update_memory or merge_memory, so the when-to-use-this-tool question is only implied.

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