Remove a provider

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that removal affects the config file and that even built-in presets can be removed. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the built-in presets nuance parenthetically. Every word contributes useful information with no 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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves the semantics of the sole 'id' parameter and any prerequisites unstated, so it is not fully complete on its own.

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?

The schema provides no description for the single 'id' parameter and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what id should reference or how to obtain valid provider ids, so the agent must infer the parameter's meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a provider'), and adds the important nuance that built-in presets are included. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling operations like add_provider and list_providers.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to delete a provider from the config file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to add_provider/set_default_model, leaving the usage context to inference.

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