forget

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context like 'permanently' and 'tombstone', reinforcing the irreversible nature. This is consistent and adds value beyond the annotations, though the annotations already convey the key safety profile.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, a usage block, and parameter list. Every sentence carries essential information, and it is front-loaded for quick scanning. No wasted words.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and the tool's destructive nature, the description adequately covers the key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and alternatives. It could mention that forget is irreversible (already implied by permanent/tombstone), but annotations cover that. No major gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'rid' as single memory ID and 'rids' as batch mode. However, it does not specify the format or source of memory IDs, which are necessary for invocation. The explanation is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Description explicitly states the action: 'Permanently forget (tombstone) one or more memories.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'correct', clarifying that 'correct' is preferred for updates, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: when user explicitly asks to forget or when a memory is clearly wrong and correction isn't appropriate. It also explicitly names the alternative ('prefer `correct` over `forget`'), which is excellent decision support.

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