xae_library_remove

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that code using the removed reference will no longer build while nothing in the code itself is modified, that ambiguous names are refused, and that the tool is confirmation-gated via tc_request_confirmation with the required action/target string format. These are exactly the side effects and auth prerequisites an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 core intent is front-loaded in the first clause, but the text is dense, parenthesis-heavy, and reads as translated prose with repeated hedging ('said', 'checked afterwards and said'). Several clauses could be tightened without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the confirmation workflow is documented. However, for a 6-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema descriptions, leaving distributor and confirm_token undefined is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain kind ('library'/'placeholder') and version ('#X' = the placeholder X) and ties plc_project_path into the confirmation target, but distributor and confirm_token are never explained, and the relationship between version and distributor is left unstated.

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 (remove) and resource (library or placeholder reference) and pins down the exact underlying operation (RemoveReference). It also pre-empts the main ambiguity an agent will hit — same-named libraries vs placeholders — which no sibling tool description covers, letting the agent distinguish this from xae_library_add, xae_placeholder_add, or xae_unlink.

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 a concrete conditional rule: a name referenced more than once is refused until kind or version disambiguates, and '#X' selects placeholder X. That is real when-to-do-what guidance, but it never routes the agent to alternatives (e.g., xae_placeholder_resolve or xae_unlink for other reference kinds).

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