Remove raw namelist

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 only the index-based targeting (which duplicates the schema) plus a pointer to governing bulc rules; it does not say what is lost, whether the removal is undoable, or how later indexes shift, which is the main behavioral risk of positional deletion.

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?

Front-loaded, single-sentence purpose, with the rule citation kept short on a second line. The '[bulc-mcp rules] ... bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is terse but reads like template leakage and costs a little clarity.

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 line removal with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, purpose plus parameter plus governing-rule pointer is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absent note on index shifting after deletion, which an agent calling it repeatedly would need.

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 already documents itself as a '0-based index from list_raw_namelists'. The description restates this without adding format, bounds, or error behavior, 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and a precise resource ('a raw namelist line by its index'), and names the source list it operates on. An agent can separate this from the many other remove_* siblings (remove_bndf, remove_obstacle, remove_surface) without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: referencing list_raw_namelists tells the agent it must enumerate first to obtain an index. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative (e.g. add_raw_namelist), no prerequisites, and no guidance on repeated removals or index invalidation.

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