strudel_remove_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key side effect ('Removing the last one hushes Strudel'), which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it omits error behavior (unknown name), reversibility, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter removal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to adequate but leaves gaps: what happens when the named block does not exist, and how the hush side effect interacts with other state.

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 implies the single 'name' parameter identifies the block to remove, adding marginal meaning, but gives no format, naming convention, or matching semantics (e.g., whether it must match a block set earlier).

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('named block from the Strudel program'), which clearly positions it as the counterpart to strudel_set_block. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives like strudel_hush (which silences everything) or strudel_set_block. The note about removing the last block hushing Strudel is a side-effect fact, not a when-to-use condition.

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