remove_locator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state whether removal is permanent, whether it fails if the locator does not exist, what side effects occur (e.g., affecting dependent steps), or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, omitting necessary context. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise in structure, but the lack of detail prevents a 5.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does but does not explain parameter semantics, usage conditions, or behavioral outcomes. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation (e.g., knowing what 'method' refers to) or anticipate the result of the removal. The low schema coverage and missing annotations make this gap more severe.

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 no meaning to any of the three parameters. The input schema itself only describes 'project' (with a description), leaving 'method' and 'pageObject' undocumented. With schema coverage at 33%, the description should compensate by explaining these parameters, but it does not mention them at all. An agent cannot determine what values to provide for 'method' (e.g., CSS selector, XPath) or 'pageObject' beyond its name.

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 'Remove a locator from a page object' is a clear and specific verb-resource statement. It unambiguously identifies the action (remove) and the target (locator from a page object), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_locator (which adds a locator) and remove_scope (which removes a scope, not a locator). The purpose is immediately understandable without needing to inspect the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the inverse of set_locator, nor does it clarify conditions for use (e.g., when a locator exists). An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection among many similar tools.

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