unslot

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful side-effect boundary — the holding node and its layer are preserved — but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the freed role's prior assignment.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the scope qualifier after the dash. Nothing is wasted, though the elliptical phrasing costs a little immediate clarity.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and what does not, which is the most important thing. It still omits reversibility, error conditions, and the return/confirmation behavior an agent would want before invoking it.

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%: 'slot' (the role name) and 'initiative' (whose slots to act on) are both documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond those definitions, so the baseline of 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 action ('free a role') and, crucially, scopes it: the node and its layer are left untouched. That distinguishes it from the general 'slot'/'slots' family, though it never names a sibling directly and the domain terms 'role'/'node'/'layer' are left ungrounded.

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?

The 'without touching the node' clause implies when this is the right choice versus a variant that does modify the node or layer, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisite (e.g. the role must currently be slotted) is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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