copalibre_module_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the all-versions scope, the atomic refusal ('removing nothing') tied to a concrete precondition, that it writes directly to the database, and that no API token is needed. It does not state irreversibility, required permissions, or response shape, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences that front-load the destructive action and its guard condition before the usage hint. Minor redundancy between 'Use it to uninstall a module no longer needed' and the opening removal statement, but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers behavior, precondition, backend mechanism, and auth requirements. The remaining gaps are alias value format and what the caller gets back on success, which are modest but real.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By alias' identifies the key and its role, but never defines the alias format (path vs. name, discipline vs. profile disambiguation) or validation rules, leaving the agent to guess what a valid value looks like.

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?

Specific verb ('removes') plus resource ('discipline or tournament-profile module') plus scope ('every installed version ... by alias'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like copalibre_module_add, copalibre_module_verify, or copalibre_module_list without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it to uninstall a module no longer needed' gives clear context for invocation, and the refusal precondition ('if any started tournament still references it') tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing recovery paths, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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