cuemap_project_unload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool persists the project before unloading, and that active projects cause a retryable busy error. This covers the primary behavioral aspects. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to the project's state in the repository. Given the lack of annotations, the description provides good but not exhaustive transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a precise usage condition. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action, the error condition, and the usage constraint. It does not explicitly state the success return value, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 description for the 'project' parameter is fully covered (100%) with a clear description including the default behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (persist and unload) and the resource (CueMap project), with the explicit purpose of reducing memory use. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cuemap_project_load or cuemap_project_save by focusing on unloading from RAM. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use only when the user explicitly asks to unload or free inactive project memory.' It also provides a behavioral constraint that active projects return a retryable busy error, guiding the agent on when the call will fail. This is direct and actionable usage guidance.

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