remove_annotation_addon

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real context the annotations lack — what is deleted (unchanged addon-owned files only), what is spared (annotation data), and a post-condition (an open editor must be reopened to unload). It does not explain what happens to modified files, which is the remaining behavioral unknown, so not a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the scope/preservation constraint front-loaded and the editor-reload caveat as a trailing operational note. Nothing to cut.

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 not be described, and the annotations set the safety baseline. But for a filesystem-mutating tool with two entirely undocumented parameters (dryRun, expectedHash) and no statement of what failure looks like when files have changed, the description leaves a material gap.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not: dryRun and expectedHash are never mentioned, and 'unchanged' only loosely gestures at expectedHash without defining what hash or what mismatch does. Only projectPath's role is inferable from context.

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 pair and resource: 'Disable and remove ... addon-owned files', and scopes it with 'only unchanged'. That clearly distinguishes it from ensure_annotation_addon and the read-only annotation tools (list_annotations, get_annotation_status), though it never names the sibling it complements.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'only unchanged' qualifier and the note that an open editor must be reopened, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or reference to the ensure_annotation_addon counterpart. An agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart of the addon setup tool.

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