untrack_asset

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the committee stops analyzing the asset and that the schema enforces a minimum of one tracked asset. Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior, which aligns.

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 that conveys the essential information with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 removal tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and constraint but lacks parameter clarification and usage guidance. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only parameter 'symbol' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'symbol' means, leaving ambiguity. Given the simplicity, some inference is possible, but the description should clarify.

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 the action (remove tracked asset) and its implication (committee will no longer analyze it). It distinguishes from sibling 'track_asset' and provides a constraint (at least one tracked asset remains).

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and context, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'track_asset' or other tools. The constraint about remaining tracked assets is helpful but not a full guideline.

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