hebbrix_forget

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the exact successful response (deleted=true and id), the already-absent edge case (structured 404 plus already_absent=true), and response-body independence. This gives an agent a stable model of both success and failure behavior, which is highly valuable for a destructive operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two compact sentences covering response semantics and an important edge case. Every sentence adds distinct and useful information without 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?

For a one-parameter delete tool, the description plus the destructive and idempotent annotations give a complete picture of what happens on success, what happens on missing id, and what type of error to expect. No critical selection or invocation behavior 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?

The schema has one obvious parameter, memory_id, and the description reinforces that it is the identifier of the memory being deleted. It adds little format or constraint detail, but the low complexity and self-explanatory parameter name make this a minimally acceptable level.

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?

"Delete a memory by id" uses a specific action verb and clear resource, and the semantic distinction from sibling tools like hebbrix_update or hebbrix_remember is obvious. The purpose is immediately understandable and not redundant with the tool name.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a memory needs to be deleted by its id, and the error handling text adds operational context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it, e.g. when only marking a memory used or updating it instead.

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