unpair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary effect (removing pairing) and the consequence (device becomes uncontrollable until re-paired), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavior unexplored.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence following immediately. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and outcome. It explains the action and the need to re-pair, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and likely effects. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites are not critical here.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Device ID or name to unpair'). The tool description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so this is a baseline 3 as per high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Remove pairing for a device.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the added consequence ('The device will need to be paired again before it can be controlled.') distinguishes it from sibling tools like pair and reinforces the reverse operation.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to remove a device's pairing), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for selection. It lacks guidance on when one might prefer unpair over other sibling tools, though the context makes it fairly obvious.

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