uninstall_capability

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the operation is destructive ('Drop') and scoped ('Shelf unchanged'), but it does not explain permanence, required permissions, cascading effects, or what 'whole-capability record' actually entails.

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 short and has no filler; both sentences carry intent, and the side-effect note is front-loaded near the main action. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

This is a destructive uninstall-style operation with no annotations, no usable parameter documentation, and only a cryptic two-sentence description. Even though an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description still lacks essential context about what a 'map' is, what a 'capability record' represents, and what consequences the operation has.

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% and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters (working_folder, project, pack, version). The wording 'this map's' is the only implicit hint that project/folder identify the target, which is far too little to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Drop' and identifies a resource ('this map's whole-capability record'), so it gestures at the operation, but 'map' and 'whole-capability record' are unexplained jargon. It does not meaningfully distinguish itself from sibling tools like uninstall_stanza or uninstall_skill beyond the vague 'Shelf unchanged' note.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'Shelf unchanged' hints at a boundary but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice or when to prefer uninstall_stanza/uninstall_skill.

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