remove_feature

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'remove' without explaining whether removal is permanent, cascades to dependent entities, requires special permissions, or is reversible. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to parse. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention consequences, error conditions, or what happens after removal. The schema only explains the parameter, leaving the operational context incomplete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including a description for the only parameter ('Feature name to remove'). The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 action (remove) and the target resource (a feature from the knowledge base). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_project and aligns with register_feature/get_feature. The scope is specific enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_project or other feature-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or conditions under which removal is appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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