remove_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's only word, 'Delete', merely restates them. It adds nothing about permanence, whether a missing id errors, whether the deletion cascades, or whether re-running is safe — all relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loaded and unambiguous in tone. The brevity is appropriate to its length, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, an undocumented required id parameter, and no explanation of consequences or recovery. Given the complexity and risk profile, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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% for the single parameter 'id', yet the description does not explain what that id identifies, where to get it (presumably list_rules), or its format. With a low coverage schema, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

It has a specific verb (delete) and resource (rule), which is better than a tautology. But 'rules' is ambiguous in this toolset — siblings include list_rules, add_rewrite, clear_agent_rules, and add_map_local/remote — and the description does nothing to disambiguate which kind of rule this removes. No sibling is named.

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?

It never says when to use this versus list_rules (to obtain an id) or clear_agent_rules (bulk removal), and gives no prerequisites or confirmation guidance. The agent must infer all routing on its own.

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