Evac remove agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — it does not say whether an unknown ID errors, whether dependent waypoints/journeys are affected, or whether the removal cascades.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, EVAC-005 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is cryptic, of unclear value, and reads like a stray internal note rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 one-parameter destructive delete whose annotations carry the safety hints, the definition is minimally adequate. It stops short of stating failure behavior or side effects, which matters for an irreversible remove operation with no output schema.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Agent ID to remove'. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove an evacuation agent') with an ID qualifier, so the action is unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as evac_clear_agents or evac_remove_waypoint, so the agent gets no help picking the right removal tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no condition that selects this over evac_clear_agents (bulk removal) or evac_update_agent. The dangling '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, EVAC-005' reference is not actionable usage advice.

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