remove_control

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to signal that removal is destructive. It adds useful non-obvious behavior: the control's input retains its last value after removal. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies a meaningful side effect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place: the action is stated first, and the side-effect clause adds one genuinely useful detail.

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 destructive tool, the description plus annotations and output schema provide enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It clearly names the target resource and a key side effect, though it could strengthen sibling differentiation with explicit when-to-use guidance.

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 schema describes 'name' as the control name but leaves 'system_id' undocumented, giving 50% coverage. The description does not explicitly explain either parameter, but the term 'control' reinforces the role of 'name'. The two-parameter schema is simple enough that the agent can largely infer semantics, though not fully.

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 states the action and object directly: 'Remove a control'. It also adds a concrete behavioral detail ('its input keeps its last value') that clarifies the exact scope of removal and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_component.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_component or add_control. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision context are provided, so the agent must 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.