arc_unregister_service_worker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., page reload, state changes), destructive nature, or permissions needed. A 2 reflects the minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded purpose. However, it could benefit from additional context without being verbose. Still efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. Description lacks what service workers are affected (active page?), error handling, and return behavior. Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without extra knowledge.

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 100% for the single parameter (tab_index). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb '解除する' (unregister) and the resource 'ServiceWorkerの登録' (ServiceWorker registration). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like arc_get_service_workers (which lists) and other storage-related 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description just states what it does, without context on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to related tools like arc_clear_storage or arc_delete_cookie.

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