sieve_remove_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the effect is local-only and that server-side scripts are untouched, which is the key blast-radius question. It omits what happens on an unknown account (error vs. silent no-op) and whether the removal is reversible, leaving those gaps for a mutation 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect scope, followed by the invocation guard. Every sentence adds an operational constraint; none restates the tool name.

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 two-parameter, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description covers what is removed, where, and when to do it. The only missing piece an agent might want is confirmation of the return value or failure behavior on a nonexistent account.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real information: 'The account must be named explicitly' signals that an identifier has to be supplied even though the schema lists zero required parameters. It does not explain the accountId vs. accountName trade-off, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an account from the local config') and immediately bounds the effect ('only forgets the connection details on this machine; scripts on the server are untouched'). That scope statement clearly separates it from the script-mutating siblings like sieve_delete_script or sieve_deactivate_scripts without needing to name them.

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?

'only do this when the user asks' gives an explicit gating condition for when to invoke, which goes beyond most definitions. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., sieve_update_account for changing rather than removing an account), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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