Remove a page from the index

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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/not-read-only; the description goes far beyond by explaining exactly what is destroyed (full-text entry and word index references), that deletion is local-only, that a running crawl may re-add the page, that stale search results persist for a few minutes, that YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD is required, and what the return message looks like.

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 purpose and scope lead, then races, side effects, auth, and return value follow in a natural operational order. Each sentence carries distinct information (scope boundary, crawl interaction, stale results, credentials), and none are redundant restatements of the name or schema.

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 destructive, credentialed single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: authorization, precise identifier semantics, side-effect boundaries, re-crawl race, result staleness, and even the shape of the returned message. No material gap remains.

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 100% and the single url parameter already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning by stressing the exact-match requirement ('by its exact URL') and that the URL should be the one search returns, which warns against normalized or redirect variants.

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 and resource ('Remove one page ... from your YaCy peer's own index') and immediately bounds the scope to the local peer's index, which distinguishes it from peer-related siblings like peers and trust_status. It also names the sibling crawl_control for the related crawl-stopping concern, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('pages the user wants gone, e.g. outdated or wrongly crawled ones'), an explicit when-not ('does not remove copies other peers hold'), and names the alternative action plus ordering ('stop it first with crawl_control'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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