remove_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the post-removal consequence ("it falls back to the default group"), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits whether the removal is reversible, what config is destroyed, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the fallback caveat parenthesized. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 not be described, and the fallback-to-default behavior covers the most consequential after-effect. Still, for a destructive mutation with zero annotations, the absence of reversibility and permission context leaves a noticeable gap.

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 neither the schema nor the description explains client_id's format or how to obtain it (e.g., via list_clients). The phrase "configured client" loosely implies an existing client identifier but adds no real semantic detail over the parameter name.

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+resource ("Remove a configured client") that clearly separates it from add_client and update_client in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the CRUD semantics are 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_client or list_clients, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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