remove_my_tool

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key effect that routing to the tool stops immediately. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the declaration can be recovered by re-declaring, permissions/ownership requirements, or whether callers using the tool are notified.

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 clauses with the action and its consequence front-loaded and zero filler. 'now' is slightly vague about timing but does not bloat the text.

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?

A destructive, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover reversibility, identifier format, and post-removal state. None of these are present, so the definition is not sufficient to call it safely.

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% and the single parameter 'tool_id' is undocumented. The description does not clarify whether the value is an opaque identifier or the declared name returned by my_tools/declare_my_tool, which is the main likely source of a failed invocation.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (a declared tool), and adds the operational consequence that routing to it stops. The phrase 'declared tool' links it to the declare_my_tool/my_tools family, though it never explicitly contrasts with unprefer_tool, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as unprefer_tool (stop preferring) versus remove_my_tool (delete the declaration). The agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.

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