document_remove_security_scheme

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It only states the action (remove) but does not disclose side effects, such as what happens if the security scheme is referenced elsewhere, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple removal tool, though it could be improved by front-loading the purpose.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward removal operation but lacks mention of important context like session validity or behavior when the scheme name does not exist. For a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, it is minimally sufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'session'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (security scheme definition), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like document_add_security_scheme or document_remove_all_security_schemes. However, it closely mirrors the tool name and lacks additional context about the scope of removal.

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 such as document_remove_all_security_schemes or document_update_security_scheme. The description does not mention any conditions or prerequisites for use.

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