remove_symbol

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

The description discloses the two-phase commitment (dry-run then confirm), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on the 'force' parameter's effect on dependency checks, potential side effects, or what happens to file backups. No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden.

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: two sentences that communicate the core purpose and the distinctive two-phase workflow. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (what does 'diff' look like?), error conditions, or the outcome of Phase 2. An agent would be left uncertain about how to interpret responses or handle failures.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the basic semantics are covered by the schema. The description adds context for the two-phase process (confirm and confirmationToken) but does not enrich understanding of other parameters like filePath, projectRoot, or force beyond what the schema states.

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 symbol from file') and introduces the two-phase process, which is a key behavioral trait that distinguishes it from other tools like rename_symbol or insert_symbol. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., rename_symbol, ast_transform). It does not mention prerequisites, suitability conditions, or when the two-phase commitment is particularly useful or necessary.

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