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

The description discloses 'soft-delete,' which adds clarity beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, the annotation already indicates it's not destructive, so the added value is marginal. No significant behavioral traits like recoverability or hard-delete alternatives are disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and purpose without any filler. 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 one-parameter tool with a rich schema and explicit annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose and usage, while the schema handles parameter details and the output schema (if any) would cover return values.

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?

The schema fully covers the parameter with a description ('Id from a prior recall_memory result'), and the tool description only repeats 'by id' without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Forget (soft-delete)') and the resource ('a memory') with a specific method ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_memory' or 'recall_memory'.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Use when a memory is superseded or no longer relevant.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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