Unregister Server

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

While annotations already flag this as destructive, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not mention irreversibility, impact on historical data, or any side effects. It merely echoes the tool's name and purpose.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core action without fluff. It is optimally concise for the simple operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail in other dimensions.

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 destructive tool with one parameter, the description is underwhelming: it omits parameter semantics, consequences of removal, and any usage context. Even with annotations covering safety, the description fails to provide a complete picture of the operation.

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 one required 'name' parameter with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., hostname, display name, or ID). The description only implies that a server is being removed, leaving the parameter's exact format ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a server from monitoring'), distinguishing it from sibling unregister tools that target different resource types (e.g., GitLab pipelines, HTTP targets). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisite or context such as 'use when you need to stop monitoring a registered server'. The description simply restates the tool's function without offering decision-making support.

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