Remove controls from a change group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the group remains in place and that unknown control names are returned, which adds value. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or error handling beyond the return of unknown names. More detail on behavior during failure would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Remove Named Controls from a change group'), followed by a clarifying behavioral note. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the action, the parameters (via schema), and the return value (unknown names). The tool's complexity is low, and the description covers all essential aspects without leaving gaps. Sibling tools are not necessary to mention for completeness here.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (id: 'Change group id', controls: 'Named Control names to stop watching'). The description adds meaning by stating that the tool returns any unknown control names, clarifying what happens when the controls parameter contains names not in the group. This goes beyond the schema's static info.

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 it removes named controls from a change group while leaving the group intact. It explicitly mentions the underlying operation (ChangeGroup.Remove) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on removal of specific controls. The addition about returning unknown control names adds precision.

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 when you want to remove specific controls without deleting the group, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qsys_change_group_clear (removes all) or qsys_change_group_invalidate. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info is given.

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