remove_consideration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by pinpointing where idempotency holds ('at the index-out-of-range boundary') and by naming the returned fields, which is useful for an agent verifying the result.

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 tight sentences: the action and idempotency caveat are front-loaded, followed by a compact return-shape listing. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations handle the mutation/idempotency profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it lacks prerequisite/permission context for this destructive edit.

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 100%, and the descriptions of tree_path, state_name, and consideration_index (including '0-based index') are already complete. The description's 'by index' phrasing adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (consideration) with the scoping qualifier 'from a state' and 'by index'. Easily distinguished from siblings like add_consideration, list_considerations, and get_consideration_info.

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?

Implies the operation is targeted at a state and keyed by index, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., vs remove_state or how to find the correct index). Usage context is only implied.

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