unload_tool_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action unloads all tools in a category and that default groups are protected, but it omits whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects active instances, or how errors for invalid or protected groups are surfaced.

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 compact: one main action sentence, one protective-exception sentence, and a simple args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation, the parameter, and one important safety exception. However, because there are no annotations, it lacks operational context such as where valid category names come from, whether unloading is permanent, and how protected groups behave when targeted.

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 input schema only states that 'group' is a required string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the needed semantic meaning by explicitly defining it as 'Category name to unload,' which is essential for correct 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 ('Unload all tools') and identifies the resource ('a category'), making the tool's action clear and differentiating it from the load_tool_group sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify that 'category' maps to a tool group from list_tool_groups, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 when to use the tool: when every tool in a category should be removed. It also provides a clear exclusion with 'Default groups are protected from unloading,' but it does not mention alternatives like load_tool_group or explain that list_tool_groups should be consulted for valid category names.

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