Remove llms.txt source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds a non-obvious behavioral restriction not present in any structured field: built-in sources are immutable. It does not mention whether removal cascades to indexed data or whether re-removing an already-removed source errors, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and tail-loaded with the exception. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile, so return values and safety need not be re-explained. The remaining gap is the downstream effect of removal (e.g. whether indexed content for that source is dropped), which an agent about to destroy data would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries its own description pointing at llms_list_sources. The prose adds nothing about the domain parameter's format or edge cases, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented single-param schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an added source from the registry') and immediately qualifies the scope with 'built-in sources can't be removed.' This cleanly separates it from siblings llms_add_source and llms_list_sources without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies ('an added source') and a negative condition that prevents a wasted call (built-in sources). It stops short of explicitly routing to alternatives such as llms_list_sources for discovering which sources are removable, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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