Remove a job mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the core behavioral effect: the mark is removed and the job can surface again. It does not, however, disclose whether the action is irreversible, idempotent, or scoped to existing marks, leaving some behavior implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses the key verb at the start and packs purpose and effect without filler. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description plus schema are thin: no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no relationship to mark-job or get-marked-jobs. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent to infer input semantics and result expectations.

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 0% description coverage for the sole 'urls' parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about URL format, what a valid target is, or how multiple URLs are handled.

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 concrete verb ('Forget') with a specific resource (a job mark) and the observable effect ('so it can appear again'). It clearly distinguishes this from mark-job by describing the inverse state change.

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?

Use is implied through the description: call this to make a previously applied-to or ignored job eligible again. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools like get-marked-jobs, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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