forget_mechanic

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

The description states the tool removes a stored record, which is a destructive mutation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No permissions, reversibility, or post-removal behavior is described either, so for a one-param mutation tool the description carries no usable behavioral detail and actively conflicts with the structured metadata.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the identifier provenance trailing behind it; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse for what it omits, but not for how it is worded.

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 no nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers the action, the object, and the id's origin, which is everything an agent needs to construct a correct call. Only error-path behavior is missing, a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so the bare number parameter receives no documentation from the schema. The description partially compensates by telling the agent where the id originates (get_profile after record_mechanic), which is real added meaning, but says nothing about invalid, already-removed, or out-of-range ids.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Remove") tied to a specific resource ("something saved with record_mechanic") and anchors it to the sibling that produces the object. An agent can distinguish it from record_mechanic and delete_saved_build without opening the schema, though "something" stays vague about what class of object is stored.

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?

Implies the lifecycle (record first, then forget by id) and names get_profile as the id source, which is genuinely useful routing. It stops short of saying when not to use it or how it differs from the adjacent delete_saved_build sibling, both of which would remove ambiguity.

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