Venue Remove

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the visible consequence ('its chat closes') and, more unusually, what is preserved ('its keys file stays where the person put it'), so the agent knows removal is partial, not a full wipe. It doesn't say whether the operation is reversible or what happens if the name doesn't exist, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most consequential fact (the chat closes) is front-loaded in parentheses immediately after the action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers the effect and persistence semantics an agent needs before destroying something. The only real gap is that the sole parameter is unexplained, which is the principal thing an agent must get right here.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is completely unqualified — the description never says whether it is the venue's display name, a slug, or a chat/keys identifier, nor whether it must be an existing venue. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (a venue's config), and disambiguates what is *not* removed (the keys file). An agent can tell this is the destructive counterpart to venue_set/venue_list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 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?

Usage is only implied: if you want a venue gone, call this. There is no explicit 'use this instead of venue_set/venue_list', no precondition (does the venue need to exist?), and no warning about confirming before removal, which matters for a destructive single-purpose tool in a family of venue_* tools.

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