uad_remove_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the write operation, the empty EffectName mechanism, and the report behavior. It also clarifies what it does NOT do (bypass). Some side effects like DSP release specifics or Unison preamp behavior are not mentioned, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, and wastes no words. Each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and when not to use it.

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?

Purpose, usage, and behavioral transparency are strong, and an output schema exists for return values. However, parameter semantics are weak due to 0% schema coverage and no description of target/device. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete for a 3-parameter tool without annotations.

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%, and the description fails to define the required 'target' parameter or the optional 'device' parameter. It only implicitly references 'slot' as an insert/Unison slot. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters, especially since 'target' is required.

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 ('Clear an insert or Unison slot'), the mechanism ('by writing an empty EffectName'), and the result ('report what was removed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uad_load_plugin, which loads rather than removes.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' guidance is provided, including a concrete alternative: set Power via uad_load_plugin(power=false) when bypassing is intended. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over siblings.

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