remove_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose that deletion is immediate and contrasts with TTL-based decay, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention permanence, reversibility, or required permissions, which are relevant for a delete operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence supplies usage guidance. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the immediate action, and the preferred alternative (TTL). It lacks explicit details on irreversibility or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is nearly complete.

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% because the only parameter reference_id is described as 'Reference ID to remove.' The description itself does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific action 'Delete an obsolete reference immediately,' clearly identifying the resource (reference) and the verb (delete). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_note and remove_milestone by specifying 'reference' and adds context with 'obsolete' and 'immediately.'

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer letting outdated references decay naturally via ttl lifecycle.' This clearly states when not to use the tool and names the alternative (TTL lifecycle), making the usage conditions unambiguous.

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