remove_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the destructive scope clearly: either all pieces or all pieces of one id. However, it does not disclose side effects such as irreversibility, whether the operation can be undone, or whether it affects the current plan versus a broader workspace.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary behavior and uses the 'or' structure to efficiently convey both invocation modes. The phrasing is slightly awkward, but every part 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core behavior and the optional parameter semantics, but it leaves ambiguity about the containing context (e.g., current plan vs. entire workspace) and about edge cases such as invalid or unknown piece ids.

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 has a single undocumented string parameter 'piece' with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'every piece of one id' clarifies that 'piece' is an identifier and that omitting it likely means all pieces. It does not provide the expected format of the id or examples, but for a single optional parameter this is reasonable.

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 action ('Remove') and a clear resource ('every piece') with an explicit scope qualifier ('or every piece of one id'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'remove' by emphasizing removal of multiple/all pieces rather than one. It could be stronger by naming the sibling or stating the containing context, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 'or' phrasing implies two distinct usage modes: one for removing everything and one for removing all pieces matching an id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer remove_all over the sibling 'remove' tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is therefore present but mostly implicit.

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