remove_code_connect_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only the local mapping file changes and never the design, and that the return value is the number of mappings removed (0 when none existed). It omits auth/permission requirements and any side effects on other consumers, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then the parameter, then the scope guarantee and return value, closing with the undo path. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its scope limitation, the return value, and the reversal path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents nodeId (with pattern and instance-id examples) and fileKey. The description adds only that an instance, component or component set id is acceptable, which is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Remove) and resource (the code component mapping), and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming add_code_connect_map as the source and get_design_context as the consumer. An agent can distinguish it from add_code_connect_map/get_code_connect_map without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to stop get_design_context from naming a component, and points to add_code_connect_map as the inverse operation to undo. It does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. permissions, whether the node must currently be mapped), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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