remove_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it explicitly discloses that the feed and all its indexed articles are removed, which is the key destructive side effect. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements, but the main behavioral risk is clearly surfaced.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the subject, action, and destructive scope are all in few words. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient: it defines the action and the critical cascade. It could add a note about irreversibility or URL semantics, but output formatting is already covered by the output schema and the tool complexity is low.

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% and the description does not compensate: it never explains that the feed is identified by URL, what URL formats are accepted, or that the parameter is required. The schema only provides the parameter name and type, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'feed' and adds the cascading effect on indexed articles, so an agent can unambiguously tell this from siblings like add_feed or list_feeds. It states a clear action and scope.

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 operation itself is self-evident: use it when a feed should no linger be present. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites or warnings beyond the action, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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