forget_factory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (machines are unaffected) but omits irreversibility, permissions, and side effects on related plans or references. This is helpful but incomplete for a delete 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, clean sentence that front-loads the action and adds a clarifier. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the roles of 'save' and 'world' or any prerequisites or consequences beyond the label removal, making it inadequate for a 3-param tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, save, world). 'Name' is somewhat inferable from the tool name, but 'save' and 'world' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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 the action ('Delete a factory label') and adds a scope clarification ('The machines themselves are untouched') that distinguishes it from destructive alternatives. This is a specific verb+resource pair with no ambiguity.

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 'machines untouched' phrase implies a safe deletion scenario, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'forget_plan', so usage context is only inferred.

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