remove_tool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that built-in tools cannot be removed, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the tool doesn't exist or whether removal is reversible.

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 a single sentence that states the core action and the key constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description plus annotations cover the essential context: what it does, what it cannot remove, and that it is destructive. The output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. The only minor gap is lack of error behavior (e.g., nonexistent tool), but this is not critical for a simple removal tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'custom tool' and the schema says 'The exact name of a custom tool to remove,' which together clarify that the 'name' parameter must be the exact name of a custom tool. However, the description itself doesn't add much beyond the schema's own description, and the schema's description is the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 custom tool') and identifies the resource being acted upon. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that built-in tools (add_tool, edit_tool, remove_tool) are protected from removal, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope and limitations.

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 implies when to use this tool (to remove a custom tool) and explicitly states an exclusion: built-in tools can never be removed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list (add_tool, edit_tool) makes the context clear. The protected built-ins note serves as a when-not-to-use guideline.

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