Remove one saved section colour from the swatch strip — the background picker's remove button. Every section painted that colour is unpainted with it (back to its section style's colour), as in the editor; the strip is rederived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | #RRGGBB, as uichemy_list_section_backgrounds shows it. | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the cascade side effect (every section painted that colour is unpainted back to its section style's colour) and that the strip is rederived. That is exactly the behavioral risk an agent needs. It omits reversibility and permission 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?
Compact and front-loaded — the action and target lead, with side effects trailing. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the result semantics, and it does explain the cascade and that the strip is rederived. For a two-parameter destructive mutation the main behavioral hazard is covered, though projectId's role and failure behavior are left unexplained.
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 coverage is only 50%: hex is documented in the schema and projectId is undocumented in both places. The description reinforces the 'saved section colour' concept but adds no format, scope, or meaning beyond what the schema already states, and does nothing to fill the projectId gap.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (one saved section colour from the swatch strip) and grounds it in the UI (the background picker's remove button). It is clear what it does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling uichemy_remove_section_background.
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 frames the tool as the picker's remove button but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not mention the ambiguous alternative uichemy_remove_section_background. Usage is only inferable from the UI analogy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
