config_remove

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that a swarm manager is required, the tool fails if services reference the config, and it is the final step in a config rotation flow. It also clarifies the return type (bool) and the condition for success, providing significant behavioral context.

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 a single primary purpose sentence. It then provides essential prerequisite and flow context, followed by a clear args/returns section. No wasted words; every sentence 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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, prerequisites, failure conditions, and the argument meaning. It references config_create for the broader workflow, making it complete within the tool family context.

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 provides only a string parameter named id_or_name with no description. The description adds semantic value by specifying that this is 'The config id or name,' clarifying that either identifier can be used. It also documents the return value, which is useful despite the output schema.

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 opens with 'Remove a swarm config,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings config_create, config_inspect, and config_list. It also adds context about being the last step of a rotation flow, reinforcing its unique role.

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?

It states the requirement for a swarm manager and explicitly warns that removal fails while services still reference the config, advising to update or remove those services first. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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