cdeck_unpair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the server-side token revocation, the local removal, and the visible after-effect on the TV. It does not cover permissions, what happens if the name doesn't match a paired device, or whether the pairing can be restored without re-pairing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the concrete consequence. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values needn't be explained because an output schema exists, and the side effects are well covered. The remaining gap is operational: the argument's meaning and the failure mode for an unknown name.

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 0% and the single parameter "name" is untyped beyond string. The description implies the name identifies the TV but never says explicitly that the argument is the paired TV's name, nor where to obtain it (presumably cdeck_list) or how matching works.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (forget/revoke) and resource (a paired TV), and states the two-part effect: server-side token revocation plus local removal. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling cdeck_pair, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

"Forget a paired TV" gives a clear context for use and the follow-up sentence signals the consequence (the TV shows a new pairing code), which implies the operation is intentionally destructive to the pairing. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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