mesh_unregister

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unregister' implies removal, but the description does not state whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the agent is not found, or whether it affects active delegations. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the action and resource clearly. For such a simple tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no additional context, the description leaves out critical operational details: error behavior, idempotency, and the effect of unregistering on related mesh entities. The agent is left to infer the consequences of the call, making the description insufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the property 'name' described as 'Agent name to remove'. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond that, 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'unregister' with the resource 'agent', clearly indicating the inverse of the sibling mesh_register. Even without reading the schema, an agent can distinguish this tool from mesh_discover, mesh_delegate, and mesh_register.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the agent must already be registered), and no exclusions. The only implied context is the action itself, which does not help an agent decide between unregistering and registering or discovering.

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