remove_tracked_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file on disk is never touched (non-destructive), explains the exact effect, and notes the return behavior (confirmation or note if path missing). It lacks details on permissions or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 well-structured: a concise one-sentence purpose, then a paragraph with context, followed by sections for args and returns. It is front-loaded with the main action and adds no unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (single parameter, straightforward action) and no significant output schema details beyond the description's return statement, the description is fully complete. It explains what tracking is removed, how the path must be specified, and what the user gets back.

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 only has a 'path' field with no description. The description adds crucial meaning: 'Absolute path of the file to stop tracking. Must match the path exactly as it was registered.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 stops tracking a file, removes it from the tracked-files list, and explicitly names the inverse operation (add_tracked_file). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it operates on a single file.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'when a file is no longer relevant or was added by mistake.' It also mentions the inverse tool add_tracked_file, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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