remove_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that core packages cannot be removed, but omits key traits such as whether removal is permanent, triggers reinstall, or affects other dependencies. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a critical constraint. Excellent conciseness.

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 two-parameter removal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description minimally covers purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks details on return behavior, how to identify core packages, or error handling, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 adds no specific meaning to the two parameters (project_id, package_name) beyond the obvious. The constraint about core packages is useful but not tied to parameters. For a tool with no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more.

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 the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'package from a project's dependencies', and adds a distinguishing constraint about core packages not being removable. This effectively differentiates from sibling tools like add_package.

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 implies usage for removing non-core packages and warns about core packages, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., updating dependencies instead).

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