unroute

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and the mutating nature of the operation. The description adds the key behavioral distinction that omitting the pattern removes all stubs, and that the tool affects 'stubs' rather than live routes or other resources, going slightly beyond the structured annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and its scope. Every word adds meaning, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering mutability and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the one/all distinction and the removal behavior; the only slight gap is not explicitly stating that omitting pattern is what triggers 'all', though the schema's null default supports that interpretation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It indicates that a single pattern removes one stub, while the tool can also remove all stubs, which maps directly to the optional 'pattern' parameter and its null default. It does not explicitly name the parameter, but the mapping is clear for a single-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('route stub') and immediately conveys the two possible scopes: one stub or all stubs. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling tool 'route', which installs stubs, and leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 gives clear context: use unroute when you want to remove either a specific route stub or every route stub. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a direct inverse of the 'route' sibling, the usage context is clear enough.

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