cyd_bt_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state-changing operation ('disconnect and forget') but does not specify whether the action is reversible, whether the keyboard must be currently connected, or what side effects occur on remembered pairings. 'Forget' suggests permanent removal, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L3.' prefix is cryptic and adds little value, but it is minimal. Overall, every significant word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 zero-argument tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits potential return values, failure conditions, and whether the action permanently removes the pairing or just disconnects temporarily. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave an agent with some uncertainty about the operation's full effect.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool operates on 'the remembered Bluetooth keyboard,' implying the target is a stored pairing rather than a device passed as an argument. This helps explain why no parameters are needed.

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 specific verb phrase 'Disconnect and forget' with a clear resource, 'the remembered Bluetooth keyboard.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cyd_bt_connect, cyd_bt_scan, and cyd_bt_status, which deal with connecting, scanning, or status rather than forgetting a stored pairing. The 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Action, L3' prefixes are cryptic but do not obscure the core function.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cyd_bt_connect, cyd_bt_status, or any related tools, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. The verb 'disconnect and forget' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer when this action is appropriate.

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