pws_remove_storyline_worker

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds important nuance by stating 'Defaults to preview,' indicating that the destructive removal is not the default action and likely requires explicit confirmation (confirmed parameter). 'Verifies removal' also discloses post-action verification behavior, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('PREVIEW OR REMOVE'), then adds verification and default behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details; 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 destructive tool with no output schema and only 0% schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, any prerequisite conditions beyond 'active storyline,' what 'confirmed' does, or the implications of removal. The preview default mitigates risk but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the destructive path.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation, but it does not. It mentions 'worker' and 'active storyline,' which loosely hint at storylineId and contractId, but it fails to explain the meaning of 'preview' and 'confirmed' flags, especially how confirmed triggers the destructive action. Minimal additional semantic value is provided.

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 the tool's function: 'PREVIEW OR REMOVE a worker from an active storyline.' It uses a specific action verb and resource, and further clarifies that it 'Verifies removal' and 'Defaults to preview.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on storyline worker removal specifically.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'active storyline' and the preview/remove distinction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pws_remove_stable_worker or pws_end_storyline. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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