lgh_remove

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

The description fully discloses destructive behavior: permanently deletes the LGH-side backup and history, and explains recovery via lgh_add and lgh_up. It also states the local working tree and git history are never touched, providing complete transparency beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 succinct yet comprehensive, covering all essential aspects—what it does, what it doesn't do, failure conditions, and recovery—without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains side effects, failure modes, and prerequisites. It provides all necessary context for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool, including a clear warning about destructiveness.

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 schema description for 'name' is present (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful context by emphasizing that the name must be an exact registered name and that it will error otherwise. While it doesn't specify format details, the added guidance is useful.

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 unregisters a repository from LGH, detailing that it deletes the bare backup repository and removes the 'lgh' remote. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lgh_add and lgh_up by focusing on removal, and mentions that the local working tree is untouched.

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?

Explicitly advises using lgh_list first to find the exact registered name, and notes that the tool fails if the name is not registered. This gives clear situational guidance and prerequisites, effectively telling when to use it relative to other operations.

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