packagekit_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions only the remove action and transport, and does not disclose privilege requirements, whether removal is irreversible, how autoremove affects dependencies, or what the caller should expect on success/failure.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and resource before mentioning the transport. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 system-mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, but the description does not mention auth expectations, return/error behavior, or PackageKit transaction concerns. The schema covers parameters well, but the operational context is too thin for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only the 'installed' and 'one or more' constraints, which is marginal beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 states a specific action ('Remove...packages') and the transport ('PackageKit D-Bus'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is being offered. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like packagekit_install and packagekit_search.

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 intended use case is explicit: this is the tool to call when installed packages should be removed. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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