Remove a monitored screen region from active tracking. Stops change and stillness detection for the specified region name, freeing resources and preventing further alerts.
Forget a region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Forget a region,' implying deletion, but discloses nothing about whether the action is irreversible, whether it cascades to dependent entities (e.g., windows or masks that reference the region), whether it errors on nonexistent names, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is overly minimal. It front-loads the core action but lacks necessary elaboration. The brevity is not harmful, but it fails to provide sufficient detail for correct usage.
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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description could be sufficient if it addressed key behaviors. However, it omits crucial context such as error handling, irreversibility, and effects on related resources. The sibling tools suggest regions are used in workflows (e.g., picking, defining), so removal likely has implications that are not disclosed.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond implying it identifies a region. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, there is no information about format, case sensitivity, or whether it must match an existing defined region exactly. The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.
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 states a clear verb ('Forget') and resource ('region'), indicating removal. It differentiates from sibling tools like define_region (creation) and list_regions (retrieval) at a basic level. However, it does not elaborate on what 'region' specifically refers to in context, but the tool name and siblings make it reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., region must exist), nor does it contrast with siblings like pir_define_region or pir_pick_region. The usage context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.