remove_evaluator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful specificity: 'Idempotent at the index-out-of-range boundary' and a list of return fields (removed, remaining, saved) that disclose operation effects. It does not describe auth needs or broader side effects, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 plus an inline return-field list. The core operation and the idempotency edge case are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the key boundary behavior. It omits prerequisites (e.g., tree must exist) and reference side effects, but is largely complete for 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 100%: tree_path and evaluator_index are fully documented in the schema. The description confirms 'by index' and 'tree-scoped' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 'tree-scoped evaluator (by index)', which distinguishes it from other state-tree removal siblings like remove_state, remove_task, or remove_consideration. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource noun makes the intent 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 tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource.

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