Unregister metrics viewer

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the lifecycle context that this removes a viewer session. It does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether the viewer session must have been previously registered, but the annotation coverage keeps this acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first sentence simply repeats the title. The second sentence carries the actual meaning. This is acceptable but not exemplary; the redundancy could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple unregister tool, the description gives the essential purpose and timing. However, because there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent still lacks explicit guidance on required fields and the expected effect. It is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 should compensate for the two parameters. It only loosely implies hostId via 'for a host' and viewerSessionId via 'viewer session', but it does not clarify how these relate, whether they are both required, or where viewerSessionId comes from. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 identifies a specific action ('Unregister'), a resource ('metrics viewer'), and a lifecycle moment ('when they stop viewing metrics for a host'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling register_metrics_viewer by focusing on teardown rather than setup, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 states a clear invocation context: call this when a viewer session stops viewing metrics for a host. It does not discuss exclusions or compare directly with register_metrics_viewer/update_viewer_heartbeat, but the condition is specific enough for an agent to pick the right moment.

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