Removes a pattern and clears it from the arrangement, shifting later patterns down one index.
Removes a pattern and clears it from the arrangement. Later patterns move down one index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | 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, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for the non-obvious side effect that later patterns shift down one index, which directly affects any subsequent index-based calls. It stops short of saying whether the removal is undoable or what happens with an out-of-range index.
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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the consequence. Zero filler.
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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the critical missing pieces are the index base/bounds and undo semantics; the description covers consequence but not validity. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool whose only input is ambiguous.
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% and the only parameter is a bare integer with a meaningless ±9e15 range. The phrase 'later patterns move down one index' hints the value is a positional index, but neither the base (0 or 1) nor the valid bounds are stated, so the agent still cannot construct a correct value with confidence.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Removes a pattern'. Easily distinguished from add_pattern, update_pattern, and remove_instrument by the resource noun. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated, keeping it just below a 5.
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 update_pattern (which might also alter arrangement) or when removal is the wrong call. No prerequisites, no mention of the undo sibling as the recovery path. The agent must infer all usage context 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.