atelierb_remove_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral variation: the tool can 'unregister' the component by default or delete the source file if the optional flag is set. This is valuable context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., reversibility, dependencies, permissions) or error conditions. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the conditional behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with only three parameters (all documented in the schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and the optional file deletion. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and main options without additional details. The tool's low complexity means no further context is necessary.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (project_name, component_name, delete_file) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the delete_file behavior in prose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description provides no additional parameter-level insight.

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 action: 'Remove a component from an Atelier B project.' It also specifies the optional behavior of deleting the source file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like atelierb_remove_project (which removes entire projects) and atelierb_add_component (which adds components). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you want to remove a component, optionally with file deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when you want to remove an entire project) or name alternatives. No clear exclusions are provided, making this a minimum-viable level of guidance.

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