Remove a server from the rack

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full disclosure burden and meets it: it flags 'Destructive', specifies that missing names return an error object instead of raising, and explains the narrow side effect of dropping only the catalog entry. This is exemplary transparency 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, destructiveness, error behavior, side-effect scope, and prerequisite. The main verb is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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, in-memory destructive tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, risks, error semantics, partial effects, and a confirmation step. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter fully ('Rack key previously passed to rack_add'), and the description's 'by name' adds little beyond reinforcing that the identifier is a string key. With 100% schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one MCP server from the in-memory rack by name.' This is not a tautology of the title and clearly differentiates from siblings like rack_add and list_rack by naming the action and target.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Use list_rack first to confirm the name') and clarifies a limitation ('Does not stop a running child'), which tells the agent when this tool is not sufficient. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for stopping a child, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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