Remove Loaded Spec

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the in-memory nature of the removal, the confirmation message returned, and the error case for missing spec names. This goes beyond the raw annotation without contradicting it.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded action statement followed by usage, args, returns, examples, and error handling. The examples are useful, though the Args section somewhat redundantly repeats the schema information.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, return type, and error handling. It does not explicitly address reversibility, but the reload workflow implies it, making it sufficiently complete.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'spec_name' and points to swagger_list_loaded for available names. The description's Args section and examples add some practical context, but do not significantly extend the schema's semantic coverage.

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 opens with a specific action 'Remove a loaded OpenAPI/Swagger specification from memory', clearly identifying both the verb and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swagger_load_spec and swagger_list_loaded, and the concrete examples further solidify the intent.

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 explicit use cases: 'free up memory or reload a spec that has changed', which gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the reload workflow implies removing before loading, which is sufficient guidance.

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