gitchanger_mcp_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether removal is reversible, whether confirmation is required, what happens if both arguments are omitted, or which config files/'detected MCP client configuration files' are touched. The only behavioral hint is that removal may target multiple destinations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('from a profile and/or MCP client configs') follows immediately after the verb. Brevity is appropriate, though it leaves little room for the behavioral detail a destructive tool needs.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description is too thin. It never states the result of the operation or the no-argument behavior, both of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The word 'and/or' in the description usefully signals that the two targets are independent and optional, but adds nothing about defaults or precedence when both are supplied.

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 GitHub MCP token') and scopes it to 'a profile and/or MCP client configs', which separates it from siblings like gitchanger_mcp_set or gitchanger_mcp_sync. It stops short of explaining how it relates to the broader profile lifecycle (gitchanger_delete), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gitchanger_mcp_sync or gitchanger_mcp_set. The agent must infer that this is the inverse of gitchanger_mcp_set purely from the names.

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