unload_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core side effect (the document is removed from memory) and that a confirmation is returned, but it is silent on whether unloading is irreversible, what happens when the alias does not exist, and whether other tools depending on that alias will fail.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the one-line summary carries the meaning, and the Args/Returns sections are brief. The Returns line is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the definition covers the essentials, but with zero annotation coverage it should have disclosed the failure mode for an unknown alias and whether the operation is idempotent.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it merely restates the field name ("The alias of the document to unload"). It does not explain where aliases originate (presumably load_json) or that the alias must match an already-loaded document.

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+resource: "Remove a loaded JSON document from memory." The pairing with the sibling load_json is obvious from the naming, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the phrase "from memory" — an agent can infer this frees a previously loaded document, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before loading a new doc, to release resources) or what happens if the alias is still in use.

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