unfile_domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: what is destroyed is only the cross-listing ('Does not touch where it is filed'), which annotations cannot convey, plus the response shape of what remains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope constraint, then the return contract. Zero filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return payload. Safety/idempotency are covered by annotations. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior when the cross-listing does not exist or is a duplicate, which matters for an idempotent destroyer.

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%, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning, including the exact-match/scope nuance for 'domain'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the return-shape sentence is about output, not inputs. 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?

Specific verb ('Drop') plus a precise resource ('one of a memory's cross-listings'), and the second sentence scopes it against the related operations (filing location, move/delete) by stating what it does not touch. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling (also_domain) for adding cross-listings, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing: use it when you want to remove a cross-listing while preserving the underlying filing. However, no alternative is named (e.g., also_domain to add, move_to_project to relocate) and no when-not condition is stated beyond the scope note.

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