Remove a word from a custom (allowed) words list

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe mutation nature is known. The description adds the global/style-scoping context but does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., fails if word not found) or side effects beyond removal, which are not covered by 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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase adds value.

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 two parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics adequately. It could mention behavior on non-existent terms, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that omitting styleId targets the global list, while providing it targets a specific style's list, directly enhancing the semantics of the styleId parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'a term from this installer's allowed-words list', with explicit scope of 'global, or a specific style's list'. This distinguishes it from siblings like remove_banned_word and add_custom_word.

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 the use case (removing an allowed word) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like remove_banned_word or add_custom_word. It provides context about global vs style-specific scope but lacks explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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