remove_server_from_pack

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the removal action and return type. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or what happens if the server or pack does not exist, creating ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with a clear structure: one sentence for purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it omits error conditions, prerequisites, and effects on the server or pack state. Given the absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, a bit more detail on behavior would improve completeness, but it is minimally viable.

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 description adds brief one-line meanings for each parameter ('Name of the pack', 'Name of the server to remove'), which is slightly more than the schema titles 'Pack Name' and 'Server Name'. However, it lacks format, constraints, or relationships between the parameters, only marginally compensating 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 action: 'Remove a server from an existing pack', identifying the verb and both resources (server and pack). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_server_to_pack and disable_server.

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 its usage through the action but provides no explicit context on when to use it or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the pack must exist) or contrast with add_server_to_pack, leaving the agent to infer.

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