uninstall_extension

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the confirmation-dialog default behavior and the self-uninstall limitation, which are meaningful. But it does not mention that uninstalling is likely permanent, any permission requirements, or potential side effects on other extensions or the bridge connection.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a parameter default and a key limitation. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core action, a parameter caveat, and a self-limitation. Still, session_id remains unexplained, and there is no broader operational context such as irreversibility or when to prefer uninstall over disable, leaving some gaps for a moderately destructive tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does add value by linking 'by id' to extension_id and explaining show_confirm_dialog's default and when to override it. However, session_id is not addressed at all, leaving part of the schema semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Uninstall another installed extension by id.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and narrows scope with 'another,' which differentiates it from self-operations. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the later self-uninstall caveat helps distinguish it from extension-management siblings like set_extension_enabled.

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 useful usage guidance for the show_confirm_dialog parameter: it defaults to true and should be set to false only for an explicitly selected disposable/test extension. It also warns that the bridge cannot uninstall itself. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like disabling an extension, leaving much of the tool-selection context implicit.

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