mesh_unserve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the side effect of stopping the process's own serve daemon when nothing else is registered, and it states the no-op behavior for unregistered procedures. This is valuable behavioral information beyond the name.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds meaningful information: the target, the daemon side effect, and the no-op guarantee. There is no filler or redundant schema 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the operation, its side effect, and a failure/idempotency case. An agent has enough context to decide when to call this tool and what will happen.

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 already describes the 'procedure' parameter as the name passed to mesh_serve, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Stop serving a procedure registered by mesh_serve.' It clearly identifies the resource and how it relates to the sibling tool mesh_serve, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 defines the exact condition for use ('procedure registered by mesh_serve') and explicitly covers the edge case where the procedure was never registered, stating it is a no-op. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to invoke it and what to expect.

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