remove_from_vocabulary

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses destructive nature (permanent delete, not recoverable), idempotency (no-op if term doesn't exist), and side effects. Missing details on authorization or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple destructive tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, BEHAVIOR, PARAMETERS). Every sentence adds value, front-loading the purpose. No fluff, compact yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, destructive action, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and return value. Siblings like add_to_vocabulary are implicitly contrasted via the 'not for' guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds key details: parameter is required, case-sensitive, exact spelling needed, and suggests confirming via get_vocabulary first. This goes far beyond the schema's bare 'term' string.

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 clearly states 'Remove a term from the voice vocabulary', specifying the verb (remove) and resource (term from voice vocabulary). It differentiates from sibling tools like add_to_vocabulary and get_vocabulary by focusing on removal.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' (causing wrong corrections or irrelevant) and 'NOT FOR' (temporarily disabling) guidance, clearly directing when to use this tool and when not to, though no alternative tool is named.

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