remove_always_include

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without mentioning whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the ref doesn't exist, whether the always_include list is consulted automatically, or what state changes occur. For a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise—the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and usage information.

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?

Despite having only 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations. There's no mention of error behaviors (missing ref, already-absent ref), no note about the relationship to the current workspace or config, and no context about why a ref would be in always_include in the first place. Sibling tools like add_always_include suggest a paired operation, but this isn't explained.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'ref' parameter. The description mentions 'a ref' but doesn't clarify what format refs take (resolvable vs literal), whether the ref must be currently present in the list, or how it relates to the resolve_ref sibling tool. The schema only says it's a string, which is minimally informative.

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?

Description states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('a ref from the always_include list'), which clearly identifies the action. It's specific enough to be understood on its own, though it doesn't add much detail beyond the tool name itself. It's distinguishable from siblings like add_always_include and remove_external_ref.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include add_always_include, remove_external_ref, and others, but the description provides no context about when removing from always_include is appropriate versus other removal operations, nor any prerequisites or side effects to be aware of.

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