mqtt_unsubscribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it is thin. It notes that unsubscribing stops receiving messages, but says nothing about scope (per-client vs. global), behavior if the topic was never subscribed, error handling, or whether the unsubscribe is durable across reconnects.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no filler. It is efficient but almost too terse to be considered polished structure.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but omits error conditions and operational scope. An agent could call it, but with no guidance on edge cases.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The MQTT topic to unsubscribe from'), so the schema already does the work and the description adds nothing further about topic format or wildcard handling. 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 (unsubscribe) and resource (MQTT topic) with the effect (stop receiving messages), which clearly separates it from mqtt_subscribe and mqtt_publish. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this reverses a subscription, but there is no statement of when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to mqtt_list_subscriptions or mqtt_read_messages. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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