unregister_agent_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the named tool does not exist, whether removal affects in-flight jobs, or whether it requires elevated permissions — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is appropriate for a simple tool, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, an agent cannot tell what constitutes success or how errors surface. For a mutation tool, more behavioral detail is needed than this one-liner provides.

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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains that it must match the registered tool's identifier. An agent must guess whether 'name' is a human-readable label, a full qualified identifier, or something else.

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 ('Remove') and a well-defined resource ('runtime-registered dynamic tool'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling register_agent_tool and list_agent_tools. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the resource phrasing is distinctive enough to disambiguate.

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 on when to use this versus register_agent_tool/list_agent_tools, and no stated preconditions (e.g., the tool must already be registered). Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'runtime-registered'.

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