ecp_asdf_uninstall

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the destructive impact ('Breaks anything still configured to use it') and the lack of output, which is important for a mutation tool without an output schema.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, warnings, and the post-check workflow with no waste. The most important behavioral caveats are front-loaded.

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?

The description is situationally sufficient for a destructive action and even routes the agent to a verification sibling, but it lacks parameter guidance and does not explain the required confirm flag. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the remaining gaps are material.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'a plugin version' and never explains the meaning of name, version, or confirm. The confirm parameter in particular is entirely undocumented, which is a gap for a destructive tool that requires explicit confirmation.

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 action and resource: 'Uninstall a plugin version.' This makes the tool distinct from related siblings like ecp_asdf_install and ecp_asdf_set_global, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.

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 gives useful operational context by warning that the operation breaks anything still configured to use that version and tells the agent to verify with ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions afterward. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions versus similar uninstall/removal tools.

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