remove_mod

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares destructiveness, the mandatory confirm: true gate, an automatic backup taken before the removal, and the non-obvious side effect that the packwiz index entry is also deleted. It does not say how a backup is restored or whether the removal is reversible beyond that, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action first and the destructive/confirm warning immediately after. Every sentence adds information the schema and the absence of annotations leave out.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, side effects, and backup behavior — the things an agent most needs. The remaining gap is the expected format of the file identifier and any indication of what the tool returns on success or failure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of confirm (must be true) and implies the target of file (a mod jar) and instance (the instance to remove from), but never specifies whether file is a jar filename, mod slug, or path — the main ambiguity an agent faces when calling this.

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 and resource ("Remove a mod jar from an instance") plus a distinguishing detail: the packwiz index entry is removed too, which separates it from a plain file deletion or from set_mod_enabled/update_mod. It never names a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a precondition ("requires confirm: true") and flags the operation as destructive, which implies careful usage. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the plausible alternative of simply disabling a mod with set_mod_enabled, and no guidance on when removal is preferable to update_mod.

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