unprefer_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and says nothing about whether the removal is idempotent, what happens if the tool was never preferred, or whether the change is persisted or per-session. 'Remove' implies mutation but no consequences are disclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage would need the description to explain prerequisites, error behavior, and identifier semantics. Almost none of that is present.

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% and the single required parameter 'tool_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what identifier form is expected or whether it refers to a declared tool, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 verb+resource pair ('Remove a preference') is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like prefer_tool and set_preferences, but 'preference' is left ambiguous — it never says the preference is over a tool, which is only inferable from the tool_id parameter name.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus prefer_tool, set_preferences, or remove_my_tool, all of which exist as siblings and plausibly overlap. The agent must guess the boundary.

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