yaaif_desktop_tool_package_uninstall

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that the tool does not delete the Package Registry entry, which is a key side-effect distinction. However, it omits operational details like behavior when no worker_id is specified (all workers vs. required), reversibility, or required permissions. The description provides partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise—a single primary sentence plus a clear redirect to the sibling tool. It front-loads the core action and includes the key distinction without waste. This is effective, efficient writing.

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 mutating operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on worker(s) when worker_id vs. worker_ids is used, what happens if the package is not installed on a worker, or whether the operation is idempotent. The distinction from the delete tool is helpful but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 has only 40% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning or defaults of parameters like worker_id, worker_ids, or version. The only clarification (that tool_key defaults to the package tool_key) is already in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 an installed command MCP from desktop workers) and clearly distinguishes it from deleting the Package Registry entry, explicitly naming the alternative tool. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separable from siblings.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool (if you need to delete the registry entry) and directs to yaaif_desktop_tool_package_delete. This provides clear usage boundaries and alternative routing, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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