remove_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: this is destructive and requires confirm: true. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible, whether matching entries are backed up, or what happens if confirm is omitted or false.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the destructive warning front-loaded alongside the operation itself. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the safety gate but leaves out the meaning of the required instanceId and the failure/no-match behavior. Adequate to call, but incomplete for confident use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the purpose of name, ip, and confirm. However, instanceId is never mentioned, and the matching semantics (AND vs OR across name/ip, behavior on multiple matches) remain ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb (remove), a specific resource (multiplayer server entries in servers.dat), and the matching keys (name or ip). This clearly separates it from add_server, list_servers, and the instance-level delete_instance 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?

States the selection condition ('matching a name or ip') and the confirm gate, so the agent knows how to invoke it. It does not cover edge cases such as no match found or what happens if both name and ip are supplied, nor does it name alternatives.

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