remove_game_references

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and can destroy state. The description adds real value by explaining that only_game_references protects framework/NuGet references from removal. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the dry_run flag provides a safe preview, or what happens on partial failure.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying caveat attached inline. Nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than through efficient density.

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 no explanation. For a destructive four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, though, the description should explain the names/project inputs and the dry_run preview behavior; it does neither, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only glosses one of four parameters. It never clarifies what 'names' should contain (assembly names vs. file paths), what 'project' identifies, or what dry_run actually does, despite dry_run being the safety valve on a destructive tool.

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: 'Remove game DLL references from a project'. This clearly separates it from add_game_references and copy_game_references by verb alone. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, but the action is 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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus add_game_references or list_game_references, nor does it state prerequisites. The parenthetical clarifies a parameter's semantics rather than when-to-use guidance, leaving selection entirely to inference from the verb.

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