remove_agents

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it warns 'THIS MOVES MONEY', explains the immediate prorated Stripe credit, that access ends, that removing absent agents is a no-op, and that removing all agents leaves the $200/mo API base intact. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive billing operation.

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?

Front-loads the highest-risk fact ('THIS MOVES MONEY') before downstream detail, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational constraint. Despite the length, no sentence is redundant for a destructive billing tool.

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 high-risk mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the financial impact, access termination, authentication requirement, idempotent no-op behavior, subscription boundary, and the correct user-facing next step. Nothing material is missing.

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 the description must compensate. It does so well for account_token ('human-held account LOGIN token; the runtime API key cannot make this change') and adds usage context for agents and site_name. It does not add format guidance beyond the schema, but this is minor given the auth-critical parameter is fully explained.

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 agents from an EXISTING site subscription') and distinguishes itself from the sibling add_agents by direction. An agent can tell this tool apart from purchase or run-agent siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (existing subscription), prerequisites (account_token, human-held login token), an exclusion ('the runtime API key cannot make this change'), and a no-op condition. It also routes full cancellation to the account page, giving a clear alternative.

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