forget_device

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion cascades to saved discoveries and experiments, and it is permanent. It does not say how a missing/unknown device_id is handled (error vs silent no-op), which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent delete.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the destructive nature front-loaded so the agent sees the risk before the details. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is small but real: how to source device_id and what happens on an unknown id, which matter for an irreversible single-parameter delete.

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?

Only one parameter (device_id) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no clue about its format or provenance. The description only implies it identifies a single device profile; it never says where to obtain the id (e.g., list_known_devices) or what form it takes.

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?

States a specific verb ('permanently delete') and resource ('one device profile') plus the cascade scope ('its saved discoveries and experiments'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_known_devices and non-destructive ones like update_device_profile. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_device_profile, export_device_profile, or simply leaving a device unpaired. A high-stakes irreversible operation would especially benefit from a note like 'export_device_profile first if you need to retain history' — that is absent.

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