rws_unload_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a destructive operation. It says 'delete' but omits whether the unload is reversible, whether the task/module must be idle, whether mastership is required, and what happens on failure — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence with the action and target front-loaded; nothing extraneous or padded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out safety-relevant context such as preconditions, permission/mastership needs, and result reporting. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before deleting a module is incomplete.

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%, with both params documented (task example 'T_ROB1', module name). The description only echoes that a module is removed from a task, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 verb ('Unload (delete)') and resource ('a RAPID module') plus the containing scope ('from a task'), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like rws_read_module and rws_get_modules. The 'via RWS' phrasing is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 indication of when this should be used versus alternatives such as rws_load_module_from_file, rws_write_module, or whether the module must first be stopped/not executing. No prerequisites such as required mastership are mentioned.

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