yc_remove_operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's main added value is the scope statement that the remote YC application is untouched, which helps an agent assess risk. It does not say what happens if the operation does not exist, whether removal breaks pending references, or what the response reports.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the scope caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter mutation of local state, however, the definition omits not-found behavior, prerequisites for the operation existing, and whether re-registering restores it.

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 single operationName parameter relies entirely on its pattern and length constraints, which carry no semantics. The description says only 'one operation' and never explains that operationName must match a previously saved local operation or how it relates to other tool calls.

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 names a specific verb (remove) and a specific resource (one locally saved operation), then bounds the scope with 'Does not change the YC application.' That negation implicitly separates it from committing or running operations, though it never names a sibling tool.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. An agent must infer from 'locally saved' that this is a cleanup step for operations previously registered or prepared, and cannot tell whether the operation must exist first.

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