capability_remove_self

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the removal action and return to minimal profile, it doesn't describe what 'minimal room profile' means, whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 brief but contains redundant information. The 'Returns: str: JSON status reset capability' section repeats what the output schema would provide. The core description is front-loaded but could be more efficiently structured without the redundant return statement.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'minimal room profile' entails, whether this affects other agents, or what capabilities are removed. The output schema handles return values, but the operational context is incomplete for a capability removal 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, which aligns with the empty input schema. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 action ('hapus capability card kustom agent ini' - remove this agent's custom capability card) and the outcome ('kembali ke profil minimal room' - return to minimal room profile). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource being affected. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like capability_upsert_self or capability_get_self.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when this operation is appropriate versus using capability_upsert_self to modify capabilities instead of removing them. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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