memory_forgetDelete a memory upon explicit user request using recoverable soft deletion with audit logging to allow restoration and traceability.
根据用户明确要求删除一条记忆。采用可恢复的软删除，并保留审计记录。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | 用户请求删除 | |
| _memoryRequestKey | No | 兼容代理注入的内部请求键，用于合并同一次模型工具调用 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful nuance: the delete is a recoverable soft delete and audit records are retained. This changes how an agent should interpret the destructive hint. It does not cover auth, error, or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.
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 tight sentences: purpose front-loaded, behavioral nuance second. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Covers purpose and the key soft-delete/audit behavior, but with no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, it leaves parameter usage and return behavior unexplained. Adequate for a simple mutation tool but incomplete.
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 only 33% (only _memoryRequestKey is documented). The description implies the id via '一条记忆' but gives no format, syntax, or explanation for the id or reason parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 (删除/delete) and resource (一条记忆/one memory) with a clear single-item scope tied to an explicit user request. It is inherently distinguishable from memory_remember/memory_update/memory_recall, but no sibling is named, so it does not meet the 5 bar of explicit differentiation.
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?
Establishes a clear invocation condition: use only when the user explicitly requests deletion ('根据用户明确要求'). No when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.