unassign_agent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation and that it 'reroutes the conversation,' but it does not mention side effects, fail states, or whether an assignment must already exist.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each short phrase adding distinct value: the core action, the parameter source, and the behavioral effect. There is no redundancy.

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 mutation tool, the description covers what it does, where the parameter comes from, and the resulting behavior. It is largely complete, though additional context about when not to use it or expected failure modes would strengthen it.

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 provides only the parameter name and title, so the description's note that `user_ns` comes from `find_contact` adds valuable provenance. However, it does not explain the format or semantics of `user_ns` beyond that.

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 states a specific action: 'Clear the human-agent assignment on a contact's chat.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and is distinct from siblings like assign_agent and assign_agent_group.

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?

It gives useful procedural context by specifying that `user_ns` comes from `find_contact`, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over assign_agent or other alternatives. Usage is implied rather than fully stated.

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