remove-wiki

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. It explicitly states that the wiki itself is not affected and that removal is session-only, which are key non-destructive behavioral traits. It does not cover edge cases like non-existent names or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent and sufficiently detailed for a simple 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clarifying caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise yet complete.

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 single-parameter tool with a simple action and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it does not do, and the session scope. It is fully complete for the complexity level.

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 input schema describes the 'name' parameter as 'Name of the wiki to remove' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, briefly implying that the name refers to a session-registered wiki, but it does not provide additional details such as exact matching, case sensitivity, or prerequisites. Schema coverage is high, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pair ('Unregister a wiki') and specifically distinguishes what the tool does from what it does not ('Does not affect the wiki itself'). This differentiates remove-wiki from sibling tools like add-wiki and set-wiki, and clarifies that it only removes from the current session, not the underlying wiki.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for removing a wiki from the current session without affecting the wiki itself. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., if there were a delete-wiki tool), but the scope clarification effectively guides the agent to use this when merely unregistering is needed.

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