remove_data_registry_source

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the reflective RemoveAt on the protected DataSources[] array, that the asset is saved as part of the operation, that it does NOT touch the subsystem registry, and the exact idempotency semantics (removed:false with unchanged count when absent). This is far richer than the destructive/idempotent hints alone.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and inverse relationship, then mechanics, then the return shape. Dense with information and mostly earns its length, though the parenthetical return enumeration is heavy and could arguably live in an output schema if one existed.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the full return object including removed/saved/save_error/note fields. Combined with mutation semantics, idempotency, and selection rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the either/or selection. The description reinforces the data_table_path-to-SourceTable matching and the OR relationship but adds little beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Remove a DataTable source from a UDataRegistry asset') and explicitly positions itself as 'the true inverse of add_data_registry_source'. An agent can distinguish it from add_data_registry_source, clear_data_registry_sources, and the list/get siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: select by data_table_path or source_index, and it explicitly scopes out subsystem unregistration ('Does NOT unregister from the subsystem'), which is the key ambiguity for this family. It names the inverse sibling but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer it over clear_data_registry_sources, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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