remove_autoload

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation: it states that no Godot process is required, returns a plain-text confirmation, and errors if the autoload name does not exist. This adds valuable context for the agent.

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 only three sentences, all front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, a use case, operational detail, and error behavior. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, when to use it (broken autoloads), operational constraints (no Godot process), return type, and error case. No gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (projectPath, autoloadName). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the parameter names and schema descriptions are self-explanatory.

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 starts with 'Unregister an autoload from a project by name,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'add_autoload' and 'list_autoloads' by focusing on removal.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Use to recover from a broken autoload that is crashing headless ops.' This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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