unregister_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Unpair' and 'clean up' but does not state side effects, reversibility, failure conditions, or whether it only affects phantom entries. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and purpose in under 15 words. Every part earns its place without wasted verbiage, making it highly effective.

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 unpair operation with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, since there are no annotations or output schema, it lacks details about return values, error handling, and safety implications, leaving some gap for an agent to fully understand the operation's consequences.

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 description mentions 'by node_id', connecting the parameter to the action, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate by explaining how to obtain node_id or any constraints, though the single-parameter simplicity mitigates the gap.

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 ('Unpair a fabric node') and specifies the resource and scope ('by node_id (clean up phantom/duplicate entries)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_device' and 'remove_bridge' by focusing on unpairing nodes and cleaning up stale entries.

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 'clean up phantom/duplicate entries' provides clear context for when to use this tool, indicating it is meant for removing invalid or duplicate node registrations. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as for active nodes or bridges.

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