remove_config_source

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

Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it is a destructive operation on the registry but preserves cached git data. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects, which are important 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?

Two sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies a key behavioral nuance.

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 simple removal tool with one parameter and an output schema (likely returning a success indicator), the description covers the key behavioral points. It could mention the return value or error conditions, but it is largely adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'name' has no schema description, and the description does not elaborate on its meaning or constraints (e.g., must match an existing source). With 0% schema coverage, the description could add more, but the parameter is simple and implied.

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?

Description clearly states 'Remove a registered config source' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies what it does not affect ('Does not delete cached git repository data'), distinguishing its scope from related tools like add_config_source.

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 implies usage for removing a previously registered config source, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_config_source), nor does it provide context like prerequisites or safety checks.

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