Memory Forget

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and discloses the important side effect that pending extractions for the same scope are cancelled, preventing queued updates from resurrecting the memory.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action first, followed by critical warningslorantine side effects, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive tool with no annotationsce, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what is erased, irreversibility, cancellation of pending extractions, scope nuance, and the alternative tool. The existence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not the description's job.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds framing around scoping ('for one agent bucket') but the parameter-specific behaviors, such as preserving user-level summaries when agent_name is given, are already present in the schema, so the description does not add substantial extra meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Erase stored memory for a user (or for one agent bucket).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_delete_fact and memory_flush by stating scope and effect.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when the user asks to be forgotten') and when not to ('not to tidy up individual facts'), and names the exact alternative tool (`memory_delete_fact`). This removes all ambiguity about selection.

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