Put remove password

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the destructive action specifically removes a password requirement from a Send, clarifying scope beyond the generic destructive flag. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, reversibility, or side effects, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and resource, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the opaque parameters (form, params, json_body) or provide any behavioral context about what happens when the password requirement is removed, though annotations partially cover the safety profile.

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% across four parameters (send_id required, plus form, params, and json_body). The description does not explain any parameter, not even send_id, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 (Remove) and resource (password requirement from a Send), which clearly distinguishes it from other send-related tools like get_send, put_send, or delete_send. An agent can identify exactly what action is performed without opening the schema.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, similar to the update_drive calibration example that scored 2.

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