remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that removal is limited to 'unprotected' names and mentions reporting partitions, but it does not explain what happens to protected names, what a partition is, whether the operation is reversible, or any error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 sentence and therefore concise in length, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The two clauses ('Remove unprotected top-level names' and 'report every requested partition') feel disconnected, and the unusual terminology requires elaboration. It is not appropriately sized because important details are omitted, making it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and a vague description, it is not complete enough for an agent to use correctly. The presence of an output schema does not cover the need to explain protected vs. unprotected names, partition semantics, or how the tool handles out-of-scope requests. The description leaves too many critical questions unanswered for a tool that performs destructive operations.

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 input schema only defines 'names' as an array of strings with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description must compensate but only implies that 'names' refers to the top-level names to remove. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'unprotected' name, what value formats are acceptable, or how 'partitions' relate to the parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value 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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies a resource ('unprotected top-level names'), giving a general sense of purpose. However, the meaning of 'unprotected top-level names' is ambiguous, and the phrase 'report every requested partition' is confusing. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'unregister_tool' or 'reset', which also involve removal or state changes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage when removal of 'unprotected top-level names' is desired, but that is insufficient for an agent to choose confidently between this and related tools such as 'unregister_tool'.

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