remove_terminal

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

The description adds genuinely useful scope information beyond the annotations: the install and data folder persist on disk, which supports and clarifies the destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true profile. However, it does not disclose reversibility (whether the terminal can be re-added), whether a running terminal can be removed, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key consequence. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers the essential behavior and the most important side effect (files retained). Missing only edge-case behavior for running terminals and where to obtain terminal_id.

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% for the single terminal_id parameter, so the description carries the burden, yet it never mentions the identifier. The parameter name is self-explanatory in context ('a terminal from the registry'), so the practical gap is small, but no format or source (e.g. from list_terminals) is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a terminal from the registry') and scopes it precisely — registry entry only, files untouched. This separates it reasonably well from add_terminal/list_terminals, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as disconnect or use_terminal, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether the terminal must be stopped first). The agent must infer the situation from the name alone.

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