resource_supplement_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation – it does not say whether deletion is reversible, whether it requires prior listing, or what happens if the source matches multiple entries.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy – there is no content to be concise about.

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, 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining consequences beyond the destructive flag, the description should at least note that the removed supplemental entry cannot be recovered and that 'source' must match an existing entry. None of that is present.

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%, so all three parameters (source, project, workdir) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy match on the source text), so the baseline of 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 (删掉) and resource (补充条目), so the basic operation is discernible. However, it does not clarify what a 'supplement entry' is relative to its many siblings (resource_supplement_list, resource_supplement_add, resource_term_*), leaving the agent to infer scope.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus resource_supplement_add or resource_supplement_list, no prerequisites, and no mention of confirmation or irreversibility. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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