Remove a panel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing beyond 'delete'. It does not state whether removal is irreversible, what happens to servers or backups associated with that panel, or whether elevated permissions are required — critical omissions for a destructive tool.

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?

A single six-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description should do substantially more — irreversibility, side effects on related servers, and failure modes are all absent. An agent could not safely predict the consequences of calling this.

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 0%, so the schema only reveals that 'name' is a required string. The description's 'by name' adds only the mild clarification that the panel is identified by its registered name rather than an ID, with no format, casing, or naming-convention details.

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 and resource ('Delete a registered panel') plus the lookup key ('by name'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs and against what object. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like panel_add or panel_list, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the panel must first be unused or unreferenced by servers), and no warning about consequences. The agent is left to infer the entire call context from the name alone.

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