unfile_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact-path matching semantics ('acme' vs 'acme/x100' are separate scopes) and the return shape, which is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't state reversibility or permission requirements, keeping it just short of 5.

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 action, then the scoping caveat, then the return shape. No filler.

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-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, matching semantics, scope examples, and return shape. Missing only permission/reversibility notes, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'domain' is matched on exact path and gives a concrete example distinguishing scopes, which adds real meaning beyond the bare 'uid'/'domain' schema titles.

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 ('Drop') and resource ('cross-listings' / membership), and explicitly distinguishes from its inverse concept by saying it 'Does not touch where it is filed.' This separates it from move_to_project and link_memories.

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?

Clear context: removes a cross-listing without affecting primary filing. The 'Does not touch where it is filed' clause implicitly signals when-not-to-use (for moving, use move_to_project), but no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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