caddy_remove_route

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by clarifying that idempotency is mode-dependent: @id mode is idempotent, while index mode is not and can remove different routes on repeated calls. It also discloses the two-step read-then-delete race, the config-global scope of @ids, and the refusal behavior when the id resolves to a non-route object. This is excellent behavioral disclosure for a destructive 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?

Every sentence carries essential operational or safety information. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then systematically covers target selection, idempotency differences, concurrency hazards, and scope semantics. There is no filler or repetition that does not earn its place.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses the main failure modes (race conditions, repeated index removal, non-route @id targets), explains the confirm-based safety mechanism indirectly through the schema, and gives the agent enough context to call the tool correctly and avoid destructive mistakes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains why id is preferred, warns that index removal re-packs the routes array, and clarifies that @ids are config-global rather than route-scoped. This enriches the agent's understanding of how id and index actually behave.

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 opens with a direct, specific statement—'Remove a route'—and immediately identifies the two targeting modes (@id or index on a specific server). This clearly distinguishes it from generic config deletion tools and from route-modification siblings like caddy_add_route or caddy_list_routes.

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 explicit usage guidance: prefer @id because it is stable across reorderings, avoid index mode when possible because it can race against concurrent edits. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like caddy_config_delete, but the contextual guidance for choosing between the tool's own modes is strong and concrete.

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