lw_ble_unsubscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name: buffered data is released (i.e., discarded), which signals potential data loss. However, it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., unsubscribing an unknown subscription_id), whether the subscription becomes invalid, or auth/connection requirements.

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 filler; the verb and consequence come first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves information holes rather than wasting 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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but prerequisites, failure behavior, and parameter meanings are all missing.

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% across three parameters (connection_id, subscription_id, timeout_s), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The agent gets no hint that subscription_id must identify an existing subscription or what timeout_s governs.

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 pairs a specific verb ('stop') with a specific resource ('a notification stream') and adds the consequence of releasing buffered data. It is clearly the inverse of lw_ble_subscribe, so an agent can place it without opening schemas, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the natural alternative (lw_ble_subscribe) or of related tools like lw_ble_subscription_list or lw_ble_poll_notifications. The agent must infer that this is called to tear down a subscription.

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