unregister_autoload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the guard semantics: a preview mode and a source-hash check before removal, plus the reassurance that running game sessions are untouched. It stops short of saying what happens on a hash mismatch or whether a removed entry can be restored.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its guard front-loaded before the scope caveat. Nothing repeats the title or restates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the safety model of a destructive operation well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is failure behavior when expectedHash does not match and whether the operation is recoverable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It obliquely explains 'preview' (dryRun) and 'source-hash guard' (expectedHash) and implies name is the entry key, but projectPath is never addressed and the consequences of a hash mismatch remain undefined.

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 and resource ('Remove a stored autoload entry') plus the guard mechanism, which distinguishes it from the general project-mutation siblings. It does not explicitly name the counterpart register_autoload, so the inverse relationship must be inferred from the name.

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 clause 'Does not change already-running games' gives a scope boundary that implies when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of register_autoload as the inverse operation, and no statement about prerequisites such as needing the entry to already exist.

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