service_remove

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, so the description builds on that by adding specifics: 'no confirmation, no undo' and the fact that it deletes the service definition and shuts down tasks. It also notes the manager requirement. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe permissions or error cases. A 4 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose, key requirement and alternative, then return type. Each sentence earns its place with no fluff. The most critical info (destructive action) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, the prerequisite (swarm manager), the irreversibility, the alternative for non-destructive stopping, and the return value. With an output schema implied by the return description, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the description does not explain the single parameter id_or_name beyond its name. The name is self-descriptive, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. It could have clarified that this accepts either a service ID or name, which is implied but not stated. Since the description must compensate at low coverage and doesn't, a 2 is warranted.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Stop and remove a swarm service.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling service_scale by explicitly naming it as the alternative for stopping without removal. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. States the requirement of a swarm manager and directly tells the agent to use service_scale to 0 replicas if the definition should be kept. This is a clear decision rule that leaves no inference needed.

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