unroute_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral trait of preserving crosspoints other routes still need, which is meaningful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or what happens to crosspoints that are no longer needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and the critical preservation constraint efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the primary behavior and the most important side-effect constraint, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, given the complete lack of parameter descriptions and no usage/exclusion guidance, the agent still has significant gaps to infer before calling the tool 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 0% and the description provides no information about token, from_endpoint, or to_endpoint. The phrase 'tear down one route' does not explain how the parameters identify the route or what values are expected, so the description adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: 'Tear down one route' clearly states it removes a single signal route. It also adds a distinguishing nuance—preserving crosspoints needed by other routes—which separates it from a blanket teardown like clear_all_routes.

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 the tool should be used when you need to remove exactly one route while preserving still-needed crosspoints. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over clear_all_routes or how it relates to route_signal, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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