remove_helper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context: this targets a temporary browser-only debug visual that never touches code, which explains why removal is non-destructive. It does not, however, address the non-idempotent behavior (what happens if the helper is already gone) or any error conditions.

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?

Two short lines with the operation stated directly and no filler. The bracketed tag and first sentence are slightly redundant framing, but they are brief and front-loaded rather than padded.

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 single-parameter removal tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and explains the ephemeral nature of the target. The only missing nuance is behavior on repeat invocation, which is minor here.

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 100% and the schema itself documents helperId as "ID returned by add_helper". The description reinforces the add_helper provenance but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Remove a helper") and ties it to the sibling that creates it (add_helper), so an agent can distinguish it from add_helper. The leading "[DEBUG VISUAL] Temporary visual aid in the browser. Nothing to put in code." describes the artifact class rather than the operation, which slightly muddies an otherwise clear purpose.

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 pairing with add_helper implies the tool is used to undo a previously added debug helper, and "Nothing to put in code" hints these are ephemeral. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance is given and no alternative (e.g. revert_changes) is mentioned, so usage is only implied.

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