Edtb Form Remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides meaningful behavioral detail: the default dryRun phase, one-time confirmToken, the EDTB_ALLOW_FILE_MUTATIONS=1 requirement for actual deletion, resync, and .mdo registration removal. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but the core side effects and safety flow are disclosed.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses two labelled phases to convey process flow. No sentence is wasted, and the most important safety detail (dryRun default) appears early.

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 covers the main behavioral phases, the environment gate, and the mutation effects, and the output schema handles return-value documentation. However, usage guidance and parameter semantics for objectName/projectPath are incomplete, so an agent may still lack full information for a correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dryRun and confirmToken and mentions 'by form name', which maps to formName, but objectName and projectPath are left unclear. Some semantics are present, but not enough to compensate for the full schema gap.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: deleting a form with a pre-check of BSL references. It distinguishes this tool from form compilation/inspection siblings by describing the removal workflow and naming the cascade operation GAP-FORM-REMOVE-CASCADE.

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 implies this tool is for form deletion and explains the dryRun vs. actual deletion phases. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the agent must infer the usage boundaries from context.

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