Remove Code Connect Mapping

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the blast radius ('Only the local mapping file changes, never the design') and the return contract (count removed, 0 when none existed) – neither is derivable from annotations, and there is no output schema to carry the latter.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its downstream effect before the operative details. Every clause carries unique information (sibling linkage, scope, return value, undo).

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return semantics and the 0-when-none case; with annotations covering the safety profile, it adds scope and reversibility. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by stating that instance, component, or component set IDs are acceptable, clarifying the semantics of nodeId's pattern. It does not explain fileKey's compatibility-only behavior, which the schema already covers.

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+resource ('Remove the code component mapping') and ties it to named siblings: the mapping saved by add_code_connect_map, consumed by get_design_context. An agent can distinguish it from add_code_connect_map and 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 the condition that selects this tool (you want get_design_context to stop naming that code component) and the explicit reversal path ('Add it again with add_code_connect_map to undo'). It also states the accepted ID kinds, so the when-and-how is not left to inference.

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