Uninstall Package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds specificity by stating 'Removes all metadata delivered by the package' and the target scope (second-generation package), but does not disclose additional behavioral details like irreversibility, authentication requirements, or what happens to dependent components. The added value over annotations is moderate.

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 concise: two sentences stating purpose and usage, followed by a short parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary action and use cases. The parameter list slightly duplicates the schema but is not excessively verbose.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, when to use it, what is removed, and parameter meanings. It lacks details like return values or post-conditions, but given the annotations and simple parameter set, it is adequately complete for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter list (packageId, targetOrg, wait) exactly duplicates the schema descriptions, including the SF_ALIAS env var default. No new semantic information is added beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool uninstalls a second-generation package from a target org using the SF CLI, and specifies the effect: 'Removes all metadata delivered by the package.' This is a specific verb+resource action that is distinct from siblings like sf_install_package or sf_create_package.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use before reinstalling a broken package, or to clean up a package no longer needed.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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