remove_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: the cached document survives the removal. That is meaningful beyond the name. However, it omits whether the config file is rewritten, whether removal is reversible, what happens if the service does not exist, and whether confirmation or elevated permissions are needed.

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, zero filler, with the destructive action stated first and the preservation caveat immediately after. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not empty: it tells the agent what is removed and what is kept. It still lacks error behavior, idempotency, and confirmation semantics, which an agent invoking a removal would benefit from.

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 only 50%: workspace is documented in the schema, but service is a bare string. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so the undocumented 'service' argument is left entirely to inference (name? id? path?). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Remove a service from config.' An agent can distinguish it from add_service and update_service by the verb alone. It stops short of naming how it differs from sibling mutations like refresh_service, but the core purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_service (which may also drop entries) or how it relates to refresh_service. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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