layerfs_fs_rm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that removal is followed by a checkpoint, but is silent on whether directories are removed recursively, what happens to a missing path, or whether the checkpoint can be suppressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or boilerplate. It is compressed to the point of under-specification, but that gap is better attributed to completeness than to structure.

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, open-world mutation tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: error/not-found behavior, directory semantics, and the `message` parameter are all unaddressed. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only loosely gestures at `path` and `branch` without adding format details such as the required absolute-path prefix. The `message` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving its purpose (presumably the checkpoint message) entirely unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a saved path on a branch") plus the follow-on effect ("then checkpoint"), so an agent can tell this deletes something rather than reading or moving it. "Saved path" is slightly odd phrasing for a filesystem entry, and no sibling is named, but the operation is unambiguous against fs_read/fs_write/fs_mv.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no precondition (e.g. branch must be mounted), and no exclusion guidance. The only implicit usage signal is "then checkpoint", which hints that a commit follows automatically, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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