unregister_vault

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

With only openWorldHint: false in annotations, the description carries significant weight. It explicitly states that files are not deleted, adding a key behavioral guarantee beyond the annotation. It does not disclose idempotency or error behavior, but for a simple registry operation, this is a strong level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key qualifier in under 15 words, making it optimally concise and structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior and an important caveat, but the lack of parameter format details and return value expectations leaves gaps. It is adequate for a basic tool but not fully complete.

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 has zero description coverage for the 'vault' parameter (0%), and the description does not clarify whether the value should be a name, path, or ID. The agent must rely solely on the parameter name, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'a vault from the local registry'. It also adds the crucial qualifier 'without deleting its files', which distinguishes this tool from a delete operation and aligns with its purpose among sibling tools like register_vault and create_vault.

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 implies the usage scenario: unregister a vault while preserving its files. The phrase 'without deleting its files' provides a clear contrast to deletion, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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