system_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well by mentioning 'associated folders and remotes' and the 'atomic rollback-supported transaction'. It clearly communicates that this is a destructive, safety-conscious operation, though it does not address permissions or post-removal effects in 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The '[HIGH_LEVEL]' prefix adds little value, but the rest of the sentence efficiently conveys the action, scope, and safety characteristics.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description gives enough context: what is removed, that it is done safely, and that the operation is rollback-capable. No output schema or return behavior is described, but this is not a significant gap for this kind of operation.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, systemName, as 'The name of the system to remove.' The description adds minimal semantic value beyond referring to a 'modular system', so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('removes') and a clearly defined resource ('a modular system and its associated folders and remotes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_create, system_modify, and system_audit, which all imply different operations.

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 this tool is used when a system needs to be removed, contrasting with create/modify/audit siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it or when not to use it, leaving the usage context largely to inference.

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