Spy Remove Package Blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral details. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the package itself is removed, reversibility, or any effects on the project structure). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. While conciseness is good, the lack of essential detail means it does not fully earn its place. It is not a tautology and adds some clarity, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the module parameter, any side effects, or when to use it. The output schema may cover return values, but the absence of usage and parameter guidance leaves the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'module' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'a package's blocks' but never explicitly links the 'module' parameter to the package identifier, nor does it explain expected format or any constraints. The agent must guess that 'module' refers to the package name, which is not stated.

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 ('take back out') and resource ('a package's blocks') indicating removal from the project. It is clear about the core action and distinct from related tools like spy_add_package_blocks or spy_list_packages, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'back out' implies reversal of an earlier add operation, adding context.

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 other removal tools or the inverse spy_add_package_blocks. The description simply states the action without specifying prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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