capability_remove_self

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful context by specifying what gets deleted (custom capability profile), what is restored (minimal room profile), and the intended effect (resetting published skills, constraints, and capacity data). It reinforces the destructive nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action and target, and every sentence adds value. It includes the essential warning and the alternative tool without any fluff.

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 simple zero-parameter, destructive reset tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and alternative. It provides enough information for an agent to safely decide when to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool deletes this agent's custom capability profile and restores the minimal room profile, using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool capability_upsert_self by explaining the destructive vs. preserve-and-edit contrast.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it 'only when intentionally resetting published skills, constraints, and capacity data.' It also names the alternative tool, capability_upsert_self, for preserving and editing selected fields, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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