uninstall_stanza

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side-effect boundary: the stanza is dropped from the import record and the shelf is unchanged. It does not say whether the action is reversible, whether the installed artifact is removed from disk, or what permission is required.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the side-effect note. It is compact, though slightly telegraphic due to unexplained jargon.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and no param descriptions, this is under-specified. The agent is not told what a map or import record is, how the parameters select the target, or what preconditions exist; only the shelf preservation is disclosed. The output schema can cover returns, but it does not compensate for missing input semantics.

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 description adds no explicit parameter meanings. The names working_folder, project, pack, version, and stanza_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description never explains how they identify the map, import record, or stanza, so it falls short of compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Drop this stanza from this map's import record.' This clearly identifies the target resource and scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, and the term 'map' is domain jargon, so it is not a 5.

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?

'Shelf unchanged' implies this tool is for removing a stanza from a map while preserving the shared library, giving the agent a usage boundary. However, it never directly states when to prefer this over delete_stanza, unlink_stanza, or uninstall_capability.

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