remove_alias

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real detail beyond that: only the alias is removed and the person plus other names/records stay intact, an absent alias returns removed: false with no changes, and a canonical-name target fails with alias_conflict. This tells the agent exactly what the mutation destroys and how failure behaves.

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 scope, followed by usage, blast radius, and failure modes in that order. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers blast radius, the absent-alias no-op, and the refusal path, which is enough to call it safely. The successful return shape (presumably removed: true) is only implied by contrast with the false case.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful semantics for value (matching is by normalized value, and a canonical name is rejected), but says nothing about person_id format or what normalization entails, leaving part of the parameter contract implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Remove one alias, matched by normalized value, from an existing person." It makes clear this is a single-alias removal on an existing person, which distinguishes it from add_alias/update_alias and from rename_person (which it explicitly routes to).

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?

It states the intended use ("undo a wrong alias, such as an email address stored as a name") and names the alternative for the case this tool refuses: "the canonical name is refused with alias_conflict (use rename_person instead)." When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the substitute are all explicit.

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