blueprint_remove_interface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly notes that the tool 'deletes its generated function graphs' and then 'compile[s] and save[s]', revealing destructive and mutating behaviors. This is useful transparency, though it does not delve into reversibility or error conditions.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core action and the key side effect. Every clause adds information without redundancy, achieving high clarity with minimal length.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it removes, what it deletes, and the compile/save behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's effect, though it could mention whether the operation is irreversible or if any confirmation is needed.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both blueprint_path and interface_class. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Remove an interface implementation' with the additional detail of deleting generated function graphs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_remove_function or blueprint_add_interface by specifying the resource (interface implementation) and the action.

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 implies the use case (removing an interface implementation) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like blueprint_remove_function or blueprint_add_interface. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is limited to the implied context.

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