remove_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the permanent and irreversible nature of the operation, which is critical for an agent removal tool. It also mentions the return type (JSON object indicating success/failure). More details on prerequisites or error states would improve it.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, then explains permanence, and ends with parameter and return details. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, permanence, parameter format, and return type. It could be enhanced with error handling or prerequisite info, but it is sufficient for an agent to use.

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 single parameter agent_id has zero schema description coverage, but the description adds an example ('e.g., ''001'') and clarifies it is the agent ID. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'Remove an agent from the OSSEC manager' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_agent, list_agents, and restart_agent by focusing on removal.

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 description explains the permanent effect ('Permanently removes the agent registration. The agent will no longer be able to connect to the manager.'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deactivating or suspending an agent.

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