kb_unregister

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the two key side effects: stopping file watching and removing the entry from the registry, and explicitly reassures that the folder itself is not affected. It does not mention the conditional cache deletion behavior or any permission/reversibility aspects, but the main consequences are clearly disclosed.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action ('注销一个已注册的知识库') before a colon-separated clarification of the effects. Every clause earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is reasonably complete: it identifies the target state (registered), describes the operation's effects and its non-destructive nature, and the schema fully documents both parameters. It does not cover error cases or success/output behavior, but for a simple unregister operation this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: the 'path' parameter is described as the required absolute path, and 'purge_cache' is described as a boolean for deleting the disk index cache. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource: '注销一个已注册的知识库' (unregister a registered knowledge base), and immediately clarifies the scope with '停止文件监听并从注册表移除' (stop file watching and remove from registry). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as kb_init (registration) and kb_search/kb_read (access operations).

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 usage for already-registered knowledge bases ('已注册的') and notes that the folder itself is unaffected ('不影响文件夹本身'), which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, such as 'use kb_init to re-register' or 'use kb_exempt if you only want to pause monitoring'. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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