unw_banner_plan_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses that this writes to Banner, that confirmation is enforced, and that a non-true confirm triggers a no-write dry run that names the row and projected credits. It also promises a before/after diff read back from Banner. It stops short of stating reversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect before the confirmation mechanics and identification rules. Little waste, though 'Confirmation is ENFORCED: confirm is required and must be true' is slightly redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: side effects, the enforced confirmation/dry-run path, row identification, and the return shape (before/after diff). Missing only term semantics and error behavior when a row is not found.

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 0%, so the description must compensate across six parameters. It does explain confirm (must be true), plan (id or exact name), and crn vs subject+number for row identification, but 'term' — a required parameter — is never explained, leaving a meaningful hole.

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 and resource: 'Remove one course row from a Banner plan,' with the parenthetical '(writes to Banner)' flagging the side effect. The 'one course row' granularity implicitly separates it from plan-level operations like unw_banner_plan_delete, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives operative guidance on how to identify the row (crn or subject+number) and the required confirmation, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to use this versus unw_banner_plan_delete or unw_banner_plan_add, and gives no prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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