forget_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the erased mapping is 'in-memory' (i.e., ephemeral/non-persistent) and that the operation is destructive in nature. It does not state failure behavior (e.g., whether forgetting a non-existent session errors), idempotency, or permissions, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness trades away clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the effect and timing but omits what session_id means and any error/idempotency behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter, session_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place semantics could be added — yet it never mentions session_id or what value identifies the mapping. The word 'one' faintly implies a selector, but format and expectations are left entirely to the agent.

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 gives a verb (Erase) and a resource (one in-memory placeholder mapping), and ties it to the restore flow. However, the key noun 'placeholder mapping' is never explained, and it is not clear how it relates to the tool's own name 'session' or to sibling tools like restore_file, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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 phrase 'after the restored file is created' gives an implicit timing condition for when to call it, which is useful sequencing guidance. But no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, and sibling tools are never named, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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