remove_binary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well at disclosing the non-obvious behavior: the action is deferred (pending proposal) and the blast radius is narrow ("Task definitions are preserved; only the binary grouping is removed"). It still omits permission requirements and error behavior for a nonexistent binary_name.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the confirmation requirement, and the scope caveat last. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter proposal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: it is a proposal, how to confirm it, and what is preserved. Only secondary details such as failure modes and permission requirements are absent.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema describing binary_name as "Name of the binary crate to remove." The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the identifier's format or resolution rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Propose removal of an existing binary") and immediately clarifies that this is a staged operation rather than an immediate delete, which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_task and remove_record. An agent can identify it without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the required follow-up: "Creates a pending proposal — call resolve_proposal to confirm." That gives clear context and a named alternative for the confirm step, though it does not state when this tool should be preferred over other removal paths or list prerequisites.

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