remove_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the asset file is preserved by default, allowing re-addition later, and clarifies the scope 'all profiles'. This adds meaningful context beyond the obvious removal action.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains a critical default behavior. No redundant wording.

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 removal tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides essential context about default behavior and reversibility. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and side effects.

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?

Input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including the default for also_delete_asset. The description's mention of the asset preservation aligns with the schema but does not add additional parameter-level information.

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 a specific action 'Remove a rule from karabiner.json (all profiles)', identifying both the verb and resource, and distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_rule, toggle_rule, and edit_rule.

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 provides context for the default behavior (asset preservation) and references add_rule as an alternative for re-adding, but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use in favor of toggle_rule or edit_rule.

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