ssh_forget_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that notes are deleted only on explicit request, preventing a common misconception. However, it does not disclose other side effects, such as whether active connections are affected, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to related memory/notes beyond the single caveat.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the important caveat about notes is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core action and one key side-effect, but it omits details like the exact role of delete_memory, the behavior for unknown names, and any irreversible consequences beyond notes. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that note deletion is controlled by an explicit request, effectively hinting at the delete_memory parameter. However, it does not explicitly map 'name' to the server identifier or explain that delete_memory defaults to false.

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 clearly states the action ('Удалить' – delete) and the resource ('сохранённый сервер' – saved server), which distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_forget_host_key (host key) and ssh_save_server (save). It also adds a meaningful caveat about notes, further clarifying scope.

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 usage: call this to remove a saved server, and notes are kept unless explicitly removed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_forget_host_key, nor does it mention prerequisites like the server needing to be disconnected.

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