yaaif_desktop_tool_package_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core destructive effect: the package and its platform archives are removed from the registry. However, it does not state whether the operation is irreversible, whether installed packages are also uninstalled, or what permissions are required. This is adequate but incomplete for a delete operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'and its platform archives' adds meaningful destructive scope without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the description names the target and the deletion scope precisely. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important side effects unstated, such as whether the package remains installed on workers, whether deletion is reversible, and what happens to dependent configurations. This is usable but not fully complete for a destructive 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 input schema already fully documents package_id as 'Package UUID or tool_key' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat the parameter format. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as where to find the tool_key or how to resolve a package_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource as a 'command-based MCP tool package' with scope 'from the Package Registry.' This clearly states what the tool does and how it differs from install/uninstall operations. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool such as uninstall, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'from the Package Registry' qualifier implies this is the tool for removing a package at the registry level, providing minimal usage context. But there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no pointer to sibling tools like uninstall for removing packages from a desktop worker. Usage context is only implicit.

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