unload_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does so by noting the tool is idempotent and output size is tiny. It also clarifies the side effect of freeing the DuckDB view, but it does not address error behavior or permissions. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and consequence, then adds two critical facts in terse fragments. No wasted words.

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, the description covers the core purpose, idempotency, and output size, and the output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. It stops short of mentioning how to find source IDs or what happens if the source doesn't exist, but these are minor gaps for such a focused tool.

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 only defines source_id as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates somewhat by indicating the source is 'previously loaded,' which implies source_id must identify an existing source. However, it does not provide explicit details on how to obtain a valid source_id or its format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Unregister') and resource ('a previously loaded source') and explains the consequence ('free its DuckDB view'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_source (inverse) and list_sources (listing).

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 implied: this tool is for unloading a previously loaded source. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention that list_sources can be used to find source IDs. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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