clash.rules.remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses capability-gating, rejection of ambiguous matches and drift, and two-phase preview/nonce execution. It does not detail consequences of successful removal or potential rollback.

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?

Three sentences, densely packed with key information: capability, fingerprint method, section targeting, rejection conditions, and execution flow. No filler, though a slightly more structured ordering could improve readability.

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?

The description covers usage context well but lacks mention of return values or output behavior. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of ruleFingerprints (from clash.rules.inspect), the two-phase flow with confirmed and confirmNonce, and optional uid/targetProfileUid. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it removes rules by unique fingerprint from a specific section (prepend/append/delete) of the Rules owner, distinguishing it from clash.rules.add and clash.rules.inspect.

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 mentions capability-gated access, ambiguous match rejection, and a two-phase preview/nonce execution, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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