vectr_forget

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical details: snapshots are preserved (only active notes removed), the all=true option is irreversible, and no-arg call does nothing. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: overall function, note_id usage, all=true usage, and edge cases (no args, snapshots). It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior for both parameters, the no-argument case, and side effects (snapshot preservation). It references a sibling tool for IDs, making it self-contained and complete for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are 100% covered, but the description adds practical meaning: note_id is the [#N] from vectr_recall, and all=true is irreversible. This helps the agent understand the context and consequences of each parameter beyond the schema.

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 tool deletes working-memory notes. It distinguishes between deleting one note by ID (the usual case) and deleting all notes (for refactoring). It references the sibling tool vectr_recall for note IDs, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use note_id for stale or superseded notes, use all=true after a large refactor, and calling with no arguments deletes nothing. This helps the agent decide when and how to invoke the tool, distinguishing it from other memory tools like vectr_recall or vectr_remember.

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