remove_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load. It discloses important side effects: no grant revocation and transparent re-add behavior, plus the local-only scope. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a simple removal this is significant context.

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 first two sentences are concise and informative. The final sentence 'Currently added resources: no resources added yet' appears to be a state artifact and adds no value, detracting from an otherwise lean description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and missing output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and key behavioral caveats. It is incomplete on parameter format and what happens if the resource isn't present, but these are minor for a simple removal operation.

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 schema has one required parameter 'resource' with no description, and the description does not explain its format (e.g., name vs ID). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 tool removes a resource from the local set, using the specific verb 'Remove' and identifying the resource scope. It also contrasts with the Person Server grants, distinguishing its scope from revocation.

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 provides clear context: it is agent-proxy-local only and explicitly states it does NOT revoke user grants, which signals when not to use this tool. It also mentions re-adding behavior, implying safe removal. However, it does not name an alternative tool for revocation, so it falls short of explicit alternative guidance.

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