remove_log_source

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

The description discloses that only the extracted copy is deleted, never the original, which adds valuable nuance beyond the annotations (all false, so they offer no safety signal). It also notes the inability to remove externally configured sources. However, it does not mention idempotency or other behavioral details that the annotations leave unaddressed, so it is not fully transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value: the core action, the safety guarantee, the exclusion, and the parameter/return notes. No wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, exclusions, and the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'name' parameter. It merely restates 'The source name,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not clarify format, source, or validation requirements, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Unregister') and resource ('a source added with add_log_source'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_log_source and check_log_sources. It also clarifies the side effect, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states that sources from TPM_LOG_SOURCES or auto-discovery cannot be removed here, giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. It also implies the primary use case (sources added via add_log_source) but does not name alternative tools for those cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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