remove_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deletion from specific files and auto-removal from merged list. Missing details on reversibility or error states, but sufficient for a simple deletion tool.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: action, file details, use cases. Front-loaded with the verb. No redundancy.

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?

Covers action, files affected, and usage timing. Missing return value or error handling, but no output schema expectations. Adequate for a straightforward delete tool.

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 already describes parameter fully (cam_id, required, format 'local-'). The description adds no new parameter info beyond reinforcing context. High schema coverage (100%) sets baseline at 3.

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 explicitly states the action (Delete), the resource (locally-added camera by ID), and the specific files modified (~/.openeagleeye/local-cameras.json and in-memory merged view). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_local_camera (adds) and submit_local (shares upstream).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'Use after sharing upstream via submit_local, or when a URL stops working.' This gives clear context for invocation and implies when not to use (e.g., when camera is not local).

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