package_uninstall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the deletion is scoped to install-written files only, user confirmation is required first, and dependent scenes break. It stops short of saying whether the package can be reinstalled or whether the operation is atomic, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and followed by the safety instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: exact deletion scope, the confirmation requirement, and the user-visible consequence. No output schema exists, but nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Package name from package_list.' The description adds no format, matching, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the schema carries this dimension and 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?

Specific verb (deletes) plus a precisely scoped resource: only the files that package_install wrote, explicitly excluding files shared with other packages. That scope statement is exactly what distinguishes an uninstall from a generic delete, and it ties the tool to its sibling package_install by name.

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?

Gives a concrete usage precondition ('Ask the user first') and a consequence that motivates caution ('scenes that use the package will miss it'). It does not suggest a safer prior step such as package_inspect or package_list to confirm what will be removed, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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