unload_toolset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the budget benefit but does not disclose whether the named toolset must already be loaded, whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects session state beyond tool schemas, or what errors occur for an unknown name.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and budget rationale are stated immediately, and every word contributes to the definition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but omits parameter meaning and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but would benefit from naming the inverse tool and clarifying the required argument.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, "name", with 0% description coverage. The description implies the parameter refers to a tool group but does not state the expected name format, whether it must match a loaded toolset, or any examples, leaving the single parameter underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ("Unload") and resource ("a tool group's tools") and adds the outcome of freeing the session's tool-schema budget. It is clearly distinguishable from load_toolset and list_toolsets by the verb, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "to free up the session's tool-schema budget" implies the situation in which unloading is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of load_toolset as the inverse operation, and no warnings about prerequisites or consequences.

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