forget_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states a key behavioral trait: the delete operation does not affect the world state ('Nothing in the world is touched'). This is valuable for a destructive operation, though it doesn't address recoverability or confirmation prompts.

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 wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the safety clarification adds value without bloat.

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 delete tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of the optional parameters (save, world), any usage context, and what happens after deletion. This is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly in all situations.

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 parameters. While 'name' obviously identifies the plan, the optional 'save' and 'world' parameters are left unexplained, which could lead to misuse if they are needed for scoping.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Delete a saved plan.' This directly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like list_plans and plan_factory. The additional clarification 'Nothing in the world is touched' further narrows its scope.

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 purpose is clear enough to infer when to use it, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. The comment 'Nothing in the world is touched' implies it is safe to use when you want to remove a plan without affecting the world, but the description doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over other plan-related tools.

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