forget_phone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that the phone itself is not affected, which prevents a dangerous misinterpretation. However, it does not disclose whether the registry removal is reversible, whether it affects connected/pairing state, or any permission requirements.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the key caveat about the phone being untouched is immediately adjacent, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description covers the core behavior. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance means an agent may still be uncertain about what value to pass and when this should be used instead of related phone-management tools.

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, but it does not mention the 'name' parameter or define whether it refers to the phone's display name, identifier, or registry key. The schema only provides the string type and required flag, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.

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 a specific action ('Remove a phone from the registry') and distinguishes this from physical device operations by noting the phone itself is untouched. This separates it clearly from siblings like repair_phone or add_phone.

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 implies use when you want to unregister a phone, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention related tools such as add_phone or list_phones. An agent gets little routing guidance beyond the basic action.

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