Clear custom instructions for a style

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

Annotations already state the operation is mutating and idempotent. The description adds that it clears the scope 'leaving it empty', which clarifies the end state. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 15-word sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and precise scope. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description plus schema fully cover the operation. The scope of removal is explicitly stated.

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 describes styleId with reference to list_styles and the global-instruction behavior, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level details, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'saved instructions for a scope', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_style_instructions and get_style_instructions. It also explicitly mentions global vs. specific style scopes.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for removing saved instructions, and the schema adds that omitting styleId clears global instructions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling context makes the intended use obvious.

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