Remove libraries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real operational context: which libraries are protected, the downstream side effect that placed elements become 'missing objects', and that the action is NOT undoable. That is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what it does, what is protected, what breaks, and reversibility), with the destructive warning placed last for emphasis. No 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: identifier source, protected inputs, side effects, and irreversibility.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Library paths or names exactly as listed by get_libraries'. The description's 'by path or name (see get_libraries)' restates that same information rather than adding format, cardinality, or failure semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Removes libraries from the project') and immediately constrains the identifier form ('by path or name'), which distinguishes it from the sibling library tools get_libraries, add_libraries and reload_libraries.

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?

Gives the key precondition for correct invocation (identifiers must match what get_libraries lists) and an explicit exclusion ('embedded and built-in libraries cannot be removed'). It does not contrast against siblings like reload_libraries for the 'should I remove or just reload?' decision, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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