uninstall_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mechanism (removing an injected script tag) but says nothing about whether files are mutated in place, whether changes are reversible or backed up, or what permissions/access the removal requires — all material for an uninstall-style 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?

Two short clauses with zero filler; the deprecation notice and alternative are front-loaded, followed by the concrete action and mechanism. Nothing is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate, and it covers purpose, deprecation routing, and mechanism. However, for a mutating tool that edits HTML files it omits any safety/behavioral context (reversibility, what happens on failure, return indication), leaving a real gap.

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% and both parameters (file_path, project_dir) are documented in the schema, including the search-fallback behavior when file_path is omitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Remove the feedback widget from a web application') and adds the mechanism ('by removing the injected script tag'), which immediately separates it from the install_widget sibling. It also flags the tool's status and the preferred alternative, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Deprecated — prefer the browser extension (setup_extension)'), naming the alternative tool by name. It does not elaborate on the narrow residual case where uninstalling the script tag is still the right move, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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