tmux_unbind_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return format but does not disclose destructiveness or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active tmux session). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the main action and key options. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description only covers basic functionality. It omits details about 'table' and 'target', and does not provide prerequisite context (e.g., tmux session requirement).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining 'key', 'all', and 'root'. However, it does not explain 'table' or 'target' comprehensively, leaving some parameters ambiguous.

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 'Unbind a key' and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tmux_bind_key' by performing the inverse operation. It specifies the resource (key bindings) and the action (unbinding).

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 explains when to use 'key' vs 'all' vs 'root' parameters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to other unbinding tools like 'tmux_unlink_window'.

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