remove_packages

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: true, but the description adds significant context: the danger of force removal ('dangerous!'), the platform requirement (SUSE Linux), and the sudo access requirement. It also clarifies the behavior of each mode (with dependencies, forced removal, batch removal) beyond what the annotation conveys.

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 enough, with a clear lead sentence and examples that illustrate behavior. It is slightly long but every clause adds useful information (platform, sudo, examples). It is well-structured, though initial front-loading could be slightly tighter.

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 destructive tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: accepted input types (string or list), the two boolean flags, platform constraint, permission requirement, and dangerous force mode. It also provides multiple usage examples, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although the schema already provides parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds practical semantics through examples: 'packages='firefox', remove_dependencies=true → removes Firefox with its dependencies' and the caution on force. This clarifies how parameters interact in real scenarios, adding value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'removing packages (single or multiple)' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself as the 'unified tool' for package removal, which differentiates it from sibling tools focused on updates, querying, or installation.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage: 'Only works on SUSE Linux' and 'Requires sudo access'. It also gives concrete examples illustrating when to use the different parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool in favor of siblings, leaving that implicit.

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