unifi_forget_client

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool removes a record from the controller database and specifies the 'offline client record' constraint, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether the action is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what the response indicates, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a destructive 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 concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core operation, input type, and the 'offline' constraint adequately. However, it omits usage guidance, potential errors or prerequisites, and return format, making it minimally complete but not thoroughly contextual.

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 only provides the parameter name 'macs' as an array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'by MAC address', which confirms the semantic meaning of the input, but this is largely redundant with the parameter name. It does not explain the expected format (e.g., colon-separated vs. dash-separated) or behavior when multiple MACs are provided, offering only marginal added value.

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 the specific action 'Forget/remove' and identifies the resource as 'an offline client record from controller database', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like unifi_block_client or unifi_reconnect_client. The addition of 'by MAC address' further clarifies the input method, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies the tool is used for removing offline client records but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as unifi_block_client or unifi_unblock_client. It lacks clear context for when forgetting is appropriate, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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