remove_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Mutating' and clarifies that removing evidence does not affect implementation status or assertions, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 short paragraphs: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds important context and usage tips. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy 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?

Given the moderate complexity, the description covers the mutation behavior, non-effects on the control, and how to determine the index. An output schema is present, so return value documentation is not required. Minor missing details like error handling and the server_version parameter prevent a perfect score.

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 provides good descriptions for three of four parameters (75% coverage). The description reinforces evidence_index semantics and adds guidance on finding the index, but it does not compensate for the undocumented server_version parameter, leaving a gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Remove one evidence item from a control by its position in the control's evidence array.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool add_evidence and explicitly notes the operation is mutating.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, including that evidence is auxiliary metadata and removal doesn't affect implementation status or assertions. It also gives a concrete pointer for finding the index via get_control, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied add_evidence.

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