uninstall_wrapper

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Remove' and 'restore backups.' The description adds the useful detail that backup restoration is part of the operation, but it provides no additional behavioral context such as whether the removal is irreversible, whether the game must not be running, or what happens if no wrapper is installed. With destructive annotation present, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action and efficiently adds the backup-restoration behavior. Every word contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a low-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description leaves open practical questions: what exactly should be passed as game_exe_or_dir, what conditions are required before uninstalling, and what 'restore any backups' entails in practice. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'game_exe_or_dir' at all. The parameter name and title provide some semantic hint, but the description adds no guidance about what values are valid, whether a file or directory is expected, or how the path is used during uninstall. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('Remove wrapper DLLs'), names the resource ('wrapper DLLs installed by install_wrapper'), and mentions restoration of backups. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly tying it to the inverse of install_wrapper. It loses one point because it doesn't fully disambiguate what happens to game files themselves beyond removing DLLs.

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 phrase 'installed by install_wrapper' implies this tool is meant for undoing an install_wrapper operation, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what conditions must hold before running it, or how it relates to alternatives besides install_wrapper. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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