MCP-A2A-Gateway

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (removes agent and tasks), requires a specific URL parameter, returns confirmation data including removed task count, and returns errors for non-existent agents. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical scope information, then clearly organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters, behavior, and return format. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is irreversible or mentioning prerequisites (like needing the agent to be registered first), but covers the essential context given the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'url' parameter's purpose ('URL of the agent to unregister') and the 'ctx' parameter's role ('MCP context for logging'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema that only shows 'url' as a required string.

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 specific action ('unregisters') and resource ('A2A agent from the bridge server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'register_agent' (opposite action) and 'list_agents' (read-only). The second sentence adds important scope about removing associated tasks, further differentiating it from other tools.

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 usage context through the mention of removing associated tasks, suggesting this should be used when completely removing an agent and its tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'list_agents' for checking registration status first.

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