remove_hyperlink

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing important side effects: shape-level and run-level link removal, orphaned rel dropping, preservation of media playback affordances, atomic saves with two-slot backup, and the ability to skip backup rotation. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then target syntax, then side effects, then save behavior. Every clause adds necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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?

The description provides enough detail to call the tool correctly for most cases: target format, scope, backup behavior, and side effects are all covered. It is slightly incomplete regarding the format of 'slide' and 'file_path', but given the output schema exists and sibling tools share conventions, this is a minor gap.

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 must compensate for the empty parameter schema. It does explain 'target' in detail and 'backup' behavior, but it leaves 'file_path' and 'slide' undocumented, relying on convention and sibling tool context.

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 action 'Remove hyperlinks' and specifies the two target forms: a shape id or a text range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_hyperlink and list_hyperlinks by focusing on removal with precise scope details.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: whenever hyperlinks need to be removed from either a shape or a specific run range. It thoroughly explains the target selection semantics, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to siblings.

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