remove_alias_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses risk level (medium), that the operation is a WRITE, that it captures prior entries before the change, that it's reversible via undo, and that dry_run previews without changing. This is exceptionally transparent for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose and risk in the first line, then supplements with args. The Args block follows standard docstring conventions. Minor redundancy: '[WRITE]' tag and 'risk=medium' are embedded in brackets, and the reversible note is useful but the description is still lean.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety (dry-run, reversible, risk level), all parameter sources, and the undo behavior. It's missing explicit return-value or failure-condition information, but for a straightforward single-entry removal that's acceptable. The dry_run flag is a valuable omission-guard.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. It documents name (source from list_aliases), entry (what to remove), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (source and default). The entry semantics are somewhat underspecified ('host/network/port' is a hint but not a format spec), preventing a 5, but it covers all parameters meaningfully.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Remove one entry from an alias') and distinguishes from its sibling add_alias_entry by being clearly the inverse operation. The '[WRITE][risk=medium]' prefix further clarifies intent. This disambiguates from the many read-only sibling tools.

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: it tells the user to pass dry_run=True to preview, explains that entries come from list_aliases (via the 'name' parameter doc), and notes target is optional with a default. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus add_alias_entry, but the opposite-operation relationship is implied by the reverse of the sibling tool's role.

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