Remove control

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Remove' — it does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether it fails on unknown IDs, or what happens to devices that reference the control. The rule IDs function as an opaque pointer rather than disclosed behavior.

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 maximally concise and front-loaded, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] DEVC-004, DEVC-006 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' block is poorly formed and ambiguous; it consumes space without clearly telling the agent what to do.

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, annotated destructive mutation with no output schema, the minimum is met: the target and the identifier are clear and the annotations carry reversibility/safety. It is incomplete on dependents (what happens to devices bound to the removed control) and on failure modes such as an unknown ID.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Control ID to remove'. The description's 'by ID' matches the schema exactly and adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Remove a CTRL control by ID' — which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools add_control and update_control. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the operation itself needs no disambiguation.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The bracketed note points at rules DEVC-004/DEVC-006 and a bulc_knowledge_search lookup, which faintly implies a prerequisite check, but it is cryptic and never states the condition under which removal is appropriate.

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