document_remove_all_security_schemes

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the action is destructive (removes all security schemes), but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, whether references are also affected, or the return value. Only basic action disclosure is provided.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, directly conveying the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks context about side effects (e.g., removal of dependent security requirements or impact on document validity) or confirmation of the action. It is adequate but leaves room for more completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the only parameter (session), the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully describes the 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 that it removes 'all security scheme definitions from the document', using a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from siblings like document_remove_security_scheme (singular) and document_remove_all_security_requirements (different resource).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it, such as if only some schemes should be removed or if there are dependencies.

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