remove_tracked_file

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

The description discloses that 'the file on disk is never touched — only its tracking record is deleted,' which is critical for understanding side effects. It also notes the return behavior (confirmation or note if path not found). With no annotations, this adequately covers behavioral traits.

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 concise, using two paragraphs plus structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, behavioral effect, parameter details, and return values comprehensively. It addresses all necessary aspects.

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 only the name and type for the path parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying it must be an 'Absolute path' and must 'match the path exactly as it was registered,' which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Stop tracking a file so Metis no longer watches it for changes.' It specifies that it removes a single file from the tracked-files list and mentions the inverse operation, add_tracked_file, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 advises use when a file 'is no longer relevant or was added by mistake.' It also explicitly names the inverse tool, add_tracked_file, giving context for when to use this vs. alternatives. However, it does not list other alternatives or conditions to avoid using this tool.

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