remove_component

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, but the description adds useful detail by specifying that deletion of component files is what happens. This goes beyond the raw annotation and helps the agent understand the concrete effect, while not contradicting the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds clarity about scope, mechanism, and target resource.

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 removal tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action and consequence. It does not spell out failure behavior or dependency cleanup, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'names' parameter, including an example format. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('installed shadcn/ui components'), and the mechanism ('deleting their files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component, list_components, and get_component_info.

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 usage: use it to remove already-installed components rather than to list, search, or add them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or any exclusions, such as checking list_installed first or handling dependencies.

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