unload_pack

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

Without annotations, the description adds moderate behavioral context by noting that unloading removes both chunks and embeddings. However, it does not disclose other important traits like destructiveness, reversibility, or authorization requirements, which would be expected for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word adds value, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the primary action and scope (pack, chunks, embeddings). Minor gaps remain, such as failure scenarios or state changes, but for a straightforward removal operation, it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema is clear ('Pack id (as returned by list_packs)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (a loaded knowledge pack, including its chunks and embeddings). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'load_knowledge_pack' and 'list_packs' by specifying its unique purpose.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_forget for individual facts). It does not specify prerequisites or contraindications, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema alone.

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