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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious requirement (docked/maintenance bay), the cargo-space constraint in space, and the instance-vs-type ID rule—all beyond the raw schema. It doesn't contradict the mutation hint and adds useful operational context, though it could mention side effects (e.g., module moves to cargo) more explicitly.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action, then packs prerequisites and ID disambiguation without redundant words. Every clause earns its place, and the parenthetical is structured to avoid burying the main action.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers essential call-time knowledge: prerequisites, ID disambiguation, and cargo constraint. The only slight gap is an explicit statement of what happens to the removed module (implied to go to cargo), but it's sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds crucial meaning for module_id: it accepts either an instance ID from get_ship or a type ID, and specifies when the instance ID is mandatory. This directly compensates for the schema's generic 'install/uninstall' phrase and disambiguates usage. session_id is standard and already well described.

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 opens with a direct verb+resource: 'Uninstall a module from your ship,' making the action unmistakable. It also clarifies a key behavioral distinction—module_id can be an instance or type ID, with a rule for when each is required—so an agent can distinguish it from related module tools. The presence of sibling install_mod is implicitly contrasted by the verb 'uninstall.'

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 states explicit prerequisites: must be docked or have a Ship Maintenance Bay fitted, and in space the module must fit in cargo. This tells the agent when the operation is valid, but it doesn't name alternative tools (like install_mod) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It's clear context but no exclusion/alternative routing.

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