remove_challenger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important side effect ('Removing the last challenger disables Proof-Me on the config') and access prerequisites, both beyond what the schema shows. It does not mention reversibility or response format, but the key behavioral traits are clearly stated. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core action and side effect first, then the access setup, then the login exclusion. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers what is removed, the disabling side effect, and authentication requirements. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the expected response or pointing to list_challengers for finding challenger IDs, but those are minor gaps for correct invocation.

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 both parameters already have descriptions ('HITL config ID' and 'Challenger ID to remove'). The tool description adds little extra meaning about these parameters beyond placing them in the Proof-Me/HITL context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('Proof-Me challenger from a HITL config'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_challenger and list_challengers by describing the removal action and the side effect of removing the last challenger.

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?

The description provides clear operational context: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions relative to siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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