Remove an element from the working diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that removal happens in the 'local working copy' and that the change 'un-hides / un-customizes after the next publish,' which implies a deferred, reversible-ish operation. It lacks explicit statements about permissions, restore options, or error behavior, but the given context is more than minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and every clause carries meaning. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the operation's scope (what elements, where, when), the prerequisite id discovery, and the deferred publish effect. It does not mention error handling or specific edge cases, but for this complexity level, the context is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the 'id' parameter to the workflow ('by its Id' and 'Use ribbon_get_diff to list current ids'), which helps the agent understand how to obtain valid values.

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 tool's purpose: removing specific ribbon customization elements (CustomAction, HideCustomAction, CommandDefinition, rule, LocLabel) from the local working copy by Id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ribbon_edit_diff and ribbon_discard by naming the exact element types and the 'working diff' context.

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 explicit guidance on a prerequisite: 'Use ribbon_get_diff to list current ids.' It also clarifies when the effect takes place ('after the next publish'). However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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