remove_analyzer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral detail—remaining entries are written back as-is and legal channel overlaps never block removal—which helps the agent predict side effects. However, it does not clarify persistence across sessions, error behavior for invalid slots, or what happens if restart is false.

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 concise and front-loaded; the core action is stated first, followed by parameter guidance and behavioral nuance. Every sentence provides distinct value, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter removal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to remove, how to identify it, and whether to restart. It could additionally mention failure modes or persistence behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does: 'slot' is tied to list_analyzers output and is 0-based, and 'restart' is described as optionally restarting KingstVIS so the change takes effect. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('configured decoder by slot index'), making the action unambiguous. It also states the 0-based indexing, which is critical for correct invocation, and the purpose is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_analyzer and list_analyzers.

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 explains that the slot comes from list_analyzers, giving the agent a clear prerequisite for using this tool. It also explains when restart is needed, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives; the intended use case is nonetheless evident.

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