Remove a page from the index

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it needs YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD, does not touch remote peers' copies, a running crawl may re-fetch the page, and stale search results persist for a few minutes. It also describes the return message shape.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct, useful information. It is a dense single paragraph, but nothing is redundant or padding.

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 one-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, side effects, persistence caveats, and the return value, leaving no significant gap an agent would need to call it correctly.

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% with a single 'url' param, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by emphasizing 'by its exact URL' and tying it to how search_web returns URLs, slightly improving over the schema 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Remove one page from your YaCy peer's own index') and even scopes the effects (full-text entry and word index references). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_web or crawl_site.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('pages the user wants gone, e.g. outdated or wrongly crawled'), names the condition for stopping a crawl first and the sibling to do it with (control_crawl), and clarifies what it does NOT affect (copies held by other peers).

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