remove_egovframe_components

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: only deletes manifest-recorded files, rejects components with dependencies, supports dryRun preview. Lacks mention of reversibility or backup, but adequate for a deletion tool.

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 concise sentences, each serving a purpose: action, deletion scope, dependency handling, dryRun support. No wasted words; front-loaded with core function.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameter set, description provides sufficient context: what is deleted, constraints, preview support. Could be more complete by hinting at return value, but not necessary.

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%, so all parameters documented in schema. Description adds context like 'dryRun preview' matching schema, but does not significantly extend meaning of parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool removes components assembled by add_egovframe_components, using a specific verb ('removes') and resource (components in project). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the counterpart and describing precise behavior.

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 for usage: intended for removing previously added components. Mentions rejection of dependent components and dryRun support, providing implicit guidance on when to use. Could explicitly mention alternatives like validate_egovframe_project, but still strong.

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