rba_uninstall_console_mirror

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the outcome ('restore print/warn') and provides no detail on side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for an operation that modifies runtime behavior.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The lack of essential context makes it a poor example of efficient communication; it omits parameter and behavioral details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and unexplained parameters, the description fails to give a complete picture. The agent cannot know what the tool will do to the target, what `timeoutMs` controls, or what the return value signifies.

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?

The schema lists two parameters (`target`, `timeoutMs`) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. The agent is left to infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 action ('restore print/warn') and ties it to the sibling tool 'rba_install_console_mirror', distinguishing it as an undo operation. However, it could be more explicit about what the console mirror does, making the purpose slightly less immediate.

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 phrase 'after rba_install_console_mirror' provides clear temporal context for when this tool should be used. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a paired install/uninstall operation, this is adequate.

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