agent-unlearn

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so the safety profile is externally covered. The description adds the deprecation and alias behavior, but does not describe what unlearn actually does or any side effects beyond what annotations already signal.

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. It front-loads the essential alias relationship and includes the deprecation warning, so every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterized tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not say what `kbid` means, what `docid` is for, or what invoking this tool returns or changes beyond the generic destructive annotation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for `kbid` and `docid`, and the description does not explain either parameter. The mention of `sectionType: agent` is not part of the schema and does not clarify how `kbid` or `docid` should be populated.

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 specific alias relationship: it is the shorthand form of `unlearn` with `sectionType: agent`. This distinguishes it from the sibling `unlearn` tool, though the underlying behavior is not defined beyond that shorthand connection.

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 deprecation notice and 'shorthand for unlearn' provide clear contextual guidance: the tool exists as an alias, and the agent is warned it will be removed in 2.0.0. It does not explicitly say 'use unlearn instead', but the implication is direct and unambiguous.

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