document_remove_header_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects of removal, whether the operation is reversible, how it affects existing references, or any validation details for the required parameters.

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 that front-loads the primary action. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., the header definition must exist) and effects on other parts of the document.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor detracts from the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Remove a reusable header definition from the document components') and specifies the OpenAPI version restriction ('OpenAPI 3.x only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_remove_response_header which also removes headers but from a different context.

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 only provides a version restriction but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention complementary tools like document_add_header_definition for the inverse operation, nor does it explain scenarios where removal is appropriate.

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