unregister_gameplay_debugger_category

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses that stored specs are dropped and that unregistering a non-existent category is a silent no-op reporting already_absent:true, which is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the inverse relationship, and the return shape is compact. The parenthetical C++ reference ('GameplayDebugger.h IGameplayDebugger::UnregisterCategory, the exact inverse of RegisterCategory') is redundant noise for an agent, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ category_name, unregistered, already_absent }) and covers the destruction and idempotency behaviors an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented category_name parameter. The description refers to 'a named category' but adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Unregisters') and resource ('GameplayDebugger category'), and explicitly names the sibling that creates it, register_gameplay_debugger_category. An agent can distinguish this teardown tool from the registration tool without opening either schema.

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?

Establishes clear usage context by tying it to its inverse (register_gameplay_debugger_category) and clarifying the idempotent no-op case, which is the main edge condition. It doesn't spell out explicit when-not/exclusion guidance, but the create/unregister pairing makes the applicable context obvious.

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