apt_remove

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only; the description adds useful behavioral context by warning 'RENDSZERSZINTU valtoztatas - megerositest ker' (system-level change - asks for confirmation). This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the operational impact.

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 short, front-loaded with the critical system-level warning, and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundant filler.

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 destructive system-level operation, the description conveys the essential confirmation behavior and scope, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools and does not mention potential side effects such as dependency or configuration changes, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 reported as 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only lists 'packages (lista), host, response_format' without clarifying host selection, response format options, or package constraints. The nested schema does contain this information, but the tool description itself adds little semantic value.

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 'Egy vagy tobb csomag eltavolitasa' (removal of one or more packages), giving a specific verb and resource. The tool name and title further disambiguate it from installation-related siblings like apt_install and snap_remove.

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 the tool is for removing packages, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as apt_install, apt_upgrade, or snap_remove. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case conditions beyond the purpose itself.

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