nexus_untrack_mod

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the return format ('JSON {message: ...}') and the authentication scope, but does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, such as side effects or reversibility. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences with no fluff: the first states the action, the second states the return type. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 untrack operation, the description covers the action and return format, and the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety traits. However, it lacks explicit usage context (e.g., must be tracked first, inverse of nexus_track_mod) and could mention potential errors or idempotency notes. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (mod_id and domain_name including an example and a NOT warning). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'Stop tracking' and the resource 'mod', scoped to 'the authenticated account'. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the action from its sibling nexus_track_mod by implying the inverse operation, though it does not explicitly name the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the mod must be currently tracked), and no context about authentication requirements beyond the implied 'authenticated account'. It offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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