remove_component

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the description's added value is specifying what gets destroyed: the component instance and all its connections. This cascading behavior is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb first and packs the key behavioral scope ('and every connection to it') into a compact phrase. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and cascade scope. The main gap is the undocumented 'system_id' parameter, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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 only 50%: 'name' is described as 'Instance name to remove', but 'system_id' has no schema description. The tool description does not clarify 'system_id' or add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says about 'name'.

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 names a specific action ('Remove'), a specific resource ('component instance'), and a clear scope ('every connection to it'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect or add_component. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 deleting a component instance, and the phrase 'every connection to it' hints that this is not the tool for merely disconnecting a component. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over disconnect or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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