mcp_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds the useful detail that this is a control-plane action needing no allowWrite, and specifies the two effects (adapter disconnected, tools unregistered). It does not state whether the removal is reversible or what happens on an unknown id.

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, primary action front-loaded, parenthetical sibling reference kept tight; no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effects, its safety/authorization context, and its sibling equivalence. The main gap is the absence of any id-format or error-behavior detail, which the schema does not supply either.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter has no documented format or type constraint in the description; only implicitly is it identifiable as the adapter id from 'disconnect an adapter'. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but adds little concrete syntax or scoping detail.

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+resource pair ('disconnect an adapter and unregister its tools') and immediately relates it to the sibling capability_unregister via a shared Catalog path, letting an agent place it among mcp_add/mcp_update/mcp_remove without opening any 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?

Gives the operational context that selects this tool ('Control-plane: does not require allowWrite') and names capability_unregister as an equivalent path, but does not state when to prefer this over mcp_update or capability_unregister, nor any exclusions.

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