channels_unload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by clarifying the scope of the mutation: only the in-memory session is dropped and the login/session is preserved, which explains why the operation is non-destructive and suggests it is recoverable. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or idempotency context.

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?

One compact sentence with the effect front-loaded and transport metadata tucked into parentheses as secondary detail. No waste, though the parenthetical triple-endpoint listing is more implementation trivia than agent-facing guidance.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect and the key caveat but leaves the `id` semantics and prerequisite channel state (must it be connected? what happens on repeat calls?) unaddressed. Adequate but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0% and the single `id` parameter is documented only by an example value. The description does not say whether `id` is a channel id, session id, or alias, nor what its format is, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the one parameter that matters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drop the channel's session from memory') and adds the crucial qualifier 'without logging out', which distinguishes it semantically from channels_terminate and channels_delete. It never names those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

'Without logging out' implies the usage condition (free in-memory state while keeping the session alive), which is a meaningful hint. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus channels_terminate, channels_restart, or channels_delete — arguably the most important decision for this tool.

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