Unsubscribe from events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (removing a subscription) but says nothing about reversibility, whether unsubscribing from a non-subscribed event errors, or whether it affects only the current session/machine.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot know what happens on success/failure or what values the events argument accepts.

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% for the single 'events' array. The word 'selected' hints the array chooses which events, but no format, valid event names, or requirement that they match currently subscribed events is given, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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?

States a specific verb ('stop pushing') and resource ('Figma events to the bridge'), clearly the inverse of the sibling subscribe_events. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names subscribe_events as its counterpart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus subscribe_events, get_events, or the other bridge/channel siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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