remove_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by disclosing validation behavior ('checks for dependent components and warns if the algorithm references the component's exports'), but leaves key traits unstated: whether removal is destructive/undoable, whether a warning blocks the operation or is advisory, and what happens to dependent components.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, then the caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the one non-obvious behavior (dependency checks). It could be stronger by saying whether the warning surfaces in the response or aborts the removal, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no information about sketchId scoping or component-name format (e.g., exact name vs. path), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Remove a component dependency from a sketch') with a clear inverse relationship to sibling tools like add_component and list_components. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone makes the choice 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 implies the usage context (managing sketch component dependencies) and hints that removal can be blocked or warned about, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as updating the algorithm first.

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