remove_first_run_marker

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

The description discloses the action (delete) and confirms idempotency (safe to call if marker missing). With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It could be improved by mentioning that the operation is irreversible or what the output indicates, but the current level is adequate for a simple marker deletion.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage context, and safety notice. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (zero params, single action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its safety. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description does not need to cover that.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. The description adds no param information, which is expected.

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 it deletes a specific '.first-run marker' file to signal that the config wizard is complete. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like 'remove_tracked_file' and 'add_memory_entry' as it is uniquely tied to the first-run wizard process.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: 'at the end of the first-run wizard after all config files are written.' Also provides safety guidance: 'Safe to call even if the marker does not exist', which gives clear usage context.

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