forget_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining destructive behavior. It clearly discloses the default soft-delete behavior, physical deletion for GDPR, and cascading cleanup of relationships/tags, which is strong transparency for a mutating tool.

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?

A single compact sentence delivers the action, default behavior, alternative mode, and important side effects. Every clause adds information, and the most important scoping detail (hard=false default) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the core decision point (hard vs soft) and consequential behavior (GDPR, cascade cleanup). It could be more complete by stating what 'id' refers to and what soft-deleted facts look like afterward, but it is largely sufficient.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics to the 'hard' parameter: default value, soft-delete meaning, GDPR context, and cascading effects. However, the required 'id' parameter remains undocumented beyond its integer type; its meaning as a memory/fact identifier is only implied by the tool name.

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 uses a clear verb ('遗忘') and resource ('事实'), and the soft/hard delete distinction differentiates it from sibling tools like update_memory or search_memory. Even without context, an agent can tell that this tool removes memories rather than retrieving or modifying them.

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 explains the difference between soft and hard deletion but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_memory or consolidate. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool handles related needs.

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