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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing key behavioral details: cargo capacity is measured after the module is removed, capacity-granting modules are refused while their capacity is still required, and specific refusal reasons are named. It also clarifies prerequisite states (docked vs. maintenance bay), which is valuable and not available from structured fields.

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 dense and information-rich with no filler, but it is delivered as one very long parenthetical sentence with many embedded clauses, which hurts readability. The main action is front-loaded, yet splitting the conditions into clearer sentences would improve structure without losing 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?

The description covers the prerequisites, parameter selection rules, edge cases for cargo capacity, and refusal scenarios, which is complete for a state-changing tool with no output schema. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and anticipate common failures.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning to module_id by explaining it accepts either a module instance ID from get_ship or a module type ID, and gives the disambiguation rule for multiple installed modules. This is exactly the kind of parameter guidance an agent needs that the schema alone does not fully provide.

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 ('Uninstall a module from your ship') with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like install_mod, but uninstall vs. install is an obvious semantic distinction, so the purpose is not ambiguous.

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 provides concrete usage conditions: you must be docked or have a Ship Maintenance Bay fitted, and in-space removals must fit in cargo. It also explains how to choose between instance IDs and type IDs when multiple same-type modules are installed. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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