Juno Hosting Clear

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that user-uploaded files from custom collections are not affected, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the key action and scope, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundant information.

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 destructive nature, optional parameters, and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context about what is removed and what is preserved. However, it does not explain behavior across different environments (production, staging, development) or the effect of specifying 'fullPath', but these are somewhat covered by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or guidance for the parameters (mode, profile, fullPath, consoleUrl, containerUrl) beyond what the schema already provides.

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') and the specific resource ('frontend files (JS, HTML, CSS, etc.) from your satellite'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'juno_hosting_deploy' and 'juno_hosting_prune' by specifying what is removed and what is not (user-uploaded files).

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 implicitly indicates usage by stating it removes only deployed app assets and not user-uploaded files, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'juno_hosting_prune' or other sibling tools. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations are provided.

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