xref_unload

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does it well: it discloses the side effect ('Unloads XREF memory representation') and the reversibility guarantee. It stops short of saying whether the definition must currently be loaded or what an error looks like, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short, labeled lines — statement, side-effects, disambiguation — with the key reversible-vs-permanent distinction front-loaded. No sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the mutation flag, so the description only needs to add the non-obvious semantics — reversibility and the memory-only scope — which it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to choose and call the tool is missing.

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 single 'name' parameter is already documented as the attached XREF to unload. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Unload one existing XREF definition') and immediately scopes it against the destructive sibling by saying it does not delete. An agent can distinguish it from xref_detach without reading either schema.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'use xref_detach for permanent removal,' framing this as the reversible option. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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