remove_role

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the refusal when bullets exist, the fact it spans all variants, that it cannot be undone, and to confirm with the person first. Only return-shape detail ('variants_updated') is thin, but no output schema exists so this is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the refusal rule, then the alternative, then the caution. Four tight sentences, no redundancy, every clause carries operative information.

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?

Covers purpose, refusal condition, cross-variant scope, alternative tool, irreversibility, and return keys, which is thorough for a 3-param destructive tool. Missing only explicit permission/authorization requirements, but the 'ask the person first' cue partially fills that.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it explains the conditional behavior of with_bullets (only deletes bullets when true and agreed) and implies id must be a valid role with bullets. Slight added value over the schema's own text.

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+resource (delete a role) and immediately scopes it to the profile and every variant. Names and distinguishes from the sibling save_variant, clarifying this is a global delete, not a per-CV hide.

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?

Explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative: to hide a role from one CV, use save_variant instead. Adds the guardrail that a role with bullets is refused unless with_bullets is true, so the agent knows the exact condition that makes the call succeed.

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