Cli remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive/safety profile is covered. The description adds the POST-request and ParameterError context, but omits critical behavioral facts such as that delete defaults to true (irreversible by default), whether removal can be undone, and any auth/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?

The Args/Returns/Raises structure is clean and the purpose is front-loaded, but several lines restate the parameter name without adding information, so the section is padded rather than dense.

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 destructive, six-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin: it does not clarify the default-delete behavior, what the returned response contains, or authentication needs. Annotations cover destructiveness, but the parameter and behavioral gaps leave the agent under-informed for a risky operation.

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 carry all six parameters, but most entries are tautological ('filter_type: Filter type', 'extra_data: Additional parameters as a dictionary'). It never explains the dangerous default of delete=true, the meaning of filter_type values (default 'exact'), or the timestamp units/format for after/before.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Execute archivebox remove command') and the Args list hints that it deletes matching snapshots, so the agent can infer it is the deletion counterpart to archivebox_cli_add/cli_list. However, it never explicitly says what is being removed (snapshots) or how it differs from sibling archivebox tools, relying on the name to carry that load.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (cli_add, cli_list, cli_update, get_snapshots). The only usage signal is the implicit 'remove' semantics of the name.

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