Deletes an instrument from a Bosca Ceoil song, shifts later instruments down one index, and reassigns any patterns using the removed instrument to instrument 0.
Removes an instrument. Later instruments move down one index, and patterns using it switch to instrument 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instrument | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine beyond-schema behavior: later instruments shift down one index and dependent patterns are reassigned to instrument 0. That is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call; it stops short of stating irreversibility or whether undo applies.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and consequences following immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?
Side effects are well covered for a destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, but the missing parameter format and the absence of any note on reversibility/undo leave meaningful gaps for an irreversible operation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never explains the single parameter: it is unclear whether "instrument" is a zero-based index, a name, or an ID, despite the description itself discussing indices. This ambiguity matters because the index-shifting behavior means stale indices are a real hazard.
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 ("Removes an instrument") that is immediately distinguishable from the sibling add_instrument and update_instrument. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_instrument to reassign, or remove_pattern), and no preconditions such as whether the instrument must be empty or whether removal is reversible. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.