opkg_remove

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

The description only states the core action without behavioral details. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects (e.g., removal is irreversible, may affect configs/dependencies), but none are provided beyond the verb 'Remove'.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource.

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 tool with one parameter and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should ideally mention effects or caveats (e.g., irreversibility, dependency handling) to achieve full completeness.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'package_name' with clear semantics ('Package name to remove'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Remove') on a specific resource ('an installed package') via the 'opkg' tool. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like opkg_install, opkg_update, and opkg_list.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., package must be installed), warnings, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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