text_remove_duplicate_characters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions options but fails to describe important traits like output format, handling of whitespace, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. The deferral to describe_tool indicates incompleteness.

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 fairly concise but includes redundant information ('Menu ID' is not helpful). The instruction to use describe_tool adds length without substance. It could be streamlined to focus on the core functionality and options.

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?

Lacking an output schema, the description should detail return values, but it does not. It also does not differentiate adequately from siblings or cover edge cases. The reliance on describe_tool suggests the description is intentionally incomplete for a complex tool.

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 zero parameters in the schema (baseline 4), the description compensates by introducing meaningful conceptual parameters: first/last occurrence, case sensitivity, and whitespace preservation. This goes beyond the empty schema to guide the agent on how to invoke the tool.

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 removes duplicate characters from text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_duplicate_line_remover and text_duplicate_word_remover. It specifies options (first/last, case sensitivity, whitespace preservation), leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without comparing to siblings or giving context for selection. Agents must infer from the tool name and description.

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