config_remove

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the failure mode when services reference the config, the manager requirement, and the return value (bool: True after removal). This goes beyond what annotations provide, disclosing operational constraints and outcomes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but it is not excessive. The structure is clear with prerequisites and context presented early, making it 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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: prerequisites (swarm manager), failure condition (services referencing config), and its role in the rotation flow. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The reference to config_create provides workflow context. Minor gaps like the exact format of id_or_name are not critical.

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. However, it does not explain the 'id_or_name' parameter beyond the obvious name. It does not specify that it is the config's identifier or how it should be formatted. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic clarity, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('a swarm config'), distinguishing it from related config tools like config_create and config_list. It even references the rotation flow, linking it to config_create. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: requires a swarm manager, and fails if any service still references the config, advising to update/remove those services first. It also places the tool as the last step of a rotation flow described in config_create. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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