remove_autoload

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating 'No Godot process required', which informs the agent about execution requirements. It does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint=true aligns with 'Unregister').

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 three concise sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and noting error behavior.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, error condition, and behavioral nuance (no Godot process needed). It is fully adequate.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (projectPath and autoloadName), so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of 'by name' slightly reinforces autoloadName's role, but no substantial new meaning is added.

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 verb 'Unregister' and the resource 'autoload from a project by name'. It also provides a specific use case (recover from broken autoload) which distinguishes it from siblings like add_autoload and update_autoload.

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 includes explicit context for when to use the tool ('to recover from a broken autoload that is crashing headless ops') and the error condition ('Errors if no autoload with that name exists'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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