goclaw_mcp_server_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Remove') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure, which is critical for a deletion tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (implied by 'Remove'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, success indicators, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder safe and effective agent invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or source hints, but meets the baseline since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 target ('a registered MCP server from GoClaw'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_delete' vs 'goclaw_mcp_server_update' or 'goclaw_mcp_server_grant_agent', leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing server ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_list' for verification, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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