unassume_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'Mutating,' that the control 'reverts to not_implemented,' and that the referenced assumption is 'NOT deleted'—only the linkage is removed. It lacks detail on permissions, failure modes, or no-op behavior, but covers the most important side effects.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary and the word 'Mutating,' then delivers necessary detail in a compact, information-dense structure. Every sentence adds value: inverse relationship, state change, non-deletion, and alternative tools.

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 that an output schema exists and no annotations are present, the description covers purpose, effect, state change, and alternative usage. It even references inspecting current structure with get_control_assumption_groups, providing enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 67%: model_id and control_id have descriptions, but server_version does not. The description adds behavioral meaning for control_id (e.g., 'group 1 in the common case') but does not explain server_version or provide parameter syntax beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Clear a control's externally-handled status' and identifies itself as the 'Shorthand inverse of assume_control.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling set_control_assumption_groups by scoping to single-assumption linkage removal.

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?

Explicitly directs users to 'prefer set_control_assumption_groups' for controls with multiple groups or AND/OR structure, and advises inspecting structure first with get_control_assumption_groups. The inverse relationship to assume_control also provides clear usage context.

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