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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose that it 'Updates package.json and runs npm install to clean up node_modules,' which is important behavioral context. It also implies asynchronous behavior by instructing to poll for completion. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, error cases, or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and every sentence provides meaningful information. It is efficient with no redundant text or filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's behavior well: it updates package.json, runs npm install, and directs the user to poll for completion. This covers the essential operational context for a mutation tool. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a 2-parameter tool, it is fairly complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (app and name), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Remove an npm package from an app.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like install_packages, list_packages, and search_packages. The additional details about updating package.json and running npm install reinforce its purpose.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is used (to remove packages) and explicitly instructs to 'Use get_install_status to poll for completion,' which is a useful operational guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like install_packages, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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