package_uninstall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that this is for 'second-generation' packages and specifies the target org, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or rate limits beyond what annotations state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a parameter hint. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks usage guidance, does not mention authentication or permission requirements, does not describe the wait parameter's effect, and provides no information about failure modes or confirmation steps.

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 description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the packageId parameter (format and alias) and omits the other three parameters (wait, targetOrg, apiVersion). Moreover, the packageId information duplicates what is already in the nested schema description, adding little new meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Uninstall') and resource ('second-generation package from the target org'), making the purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'package_install', but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limitations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only hint is the implied use case of uninstalling a package, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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