remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that pieces are removed, but does not mention irreversibility, error behavior for invalid keys, whether the operation is atomic, or what happens to related pieces.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could have used additional sentences to improve clarity without being wordy.

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 annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain side effects, reversibility, required context, or how this relates to sibling tools, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 schema shows only an array of strings named 'keys' with 0% description coverage. The description adds the important semantic that these strings are keys identifying pieces to remove, but it does not clarify key format, uniqueness, or handling of missing keys.

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 and resource: it removes pieces, and does so by key. It is clear enough to distinguish from broader operations like remove_all, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'by key' implies this tool is for removing specific pieces identified by their keys, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over remove_all, undo, or other removal-related tools.

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