remove_import

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

Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains the matching logic ('stripped text equality') and provides an example, but does not mention error handling (e.g., what if the import is not found), return value, or side effects like file modification. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 very concise: three short sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a concrete example. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and usage. It does not detail the output schema, but that is acceptable as the schema itself provides that information. Could mention what happens on success/failure, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'import_text' as the exact import line to match (stripped) and provides an example. 'file_path' is not described but is self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a matching import statement from a source file.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'remove_import_name' by specifying that this tool removes whole import lines, not individual names from multi-name imports.

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 tells when to use ('remove an unused import') and when not to use ('remove one name from a multi-name import'), with a direct reference to the alternative tool 'remove_import_name'. This provides clear guidance for the AI agent.

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