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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it explicitly states the destructive side effects — dropping any currently-open connection, removing the row, and stopping pushes after the call. Minor gap: it does not disclose behavior for an unknown/expired id (error vs. silent no-op).

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action and id source, the second packs in all consequential side effects. Every clause 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, id provenance, destructive side effects, and post-call condition. The only notable omission is the return value or error semantics, but the core information an agent needs to invoke correctly is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the id's provenance mirrors the schema's own description of the 'registered' event and list_sse_hooks, adding no new meaning beyond the structured field. The owner_key parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Unregister an SSE_hook'), names the lookup mechanism ('by its id'), and disambiguates the id source ('from list_sse_hooks or the stream's own "registered" event'). This clearly distinguishes it from webhook-oriented siblings like unregister_webhook_target without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context on when to invoke the tool and how to obtain the required id, citing the two authoritative sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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