unregister_tool

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

The description discloses a key behavioral guarantee: it does not affect stable tools. However, with no annotations, it doesn't mention error handling, idempotency, or the effects of unregistering an in-use tool, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loading the action and scope without any waste.

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 its core purpose and key qualification. With an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. It doesn't address edge cases like non-existent names, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely adequate.

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 lists only 'names' (array of strings) with no description, and the tool description only hints at 'requested dynamic tool registrations' without explicitly detailing what values are expected or any constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' with a targeted object 'dynamic tool registrations' and adds a qualifier 'without affecting stable tools' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove' or 'reset'.

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 clearly indicates this tool applies only to dynamic tool registrations, implying that stable tools are managed elsewhere. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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