external.library_remove

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove external library,' implying a destructive action, but provides no details about side effects (e.g., cascading removals), authorization needs, irreversibility, or what state the session must be in. This is minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 concise at one short sentence, but this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness. It repeats the tool name almost verbatim. While there is no wasted text, the sentence does not earn its place by adding value, making it merely adequate in structure.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools in the external.* family. The description lacks details about return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the context, it is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing or external knowledge.

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%—neither parameter has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds no information about what 'name' or 'session_id' represent or how they should be used. This is a complete failure to augment the schema, leaving the agent without necessary parameter understanding.

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 'Remove external library' clearly states the verb (remove) and the resource (external library). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like external.library_add or external.library_list beyond the name itself, which prevents a score of 5.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of others, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the library must already exist), or any context about the operation's effect. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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