rule_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that playbook links are also deleted, but it does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or whether confirmation is expected for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core action and cascade effect efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential action and its side effect. However, because this is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it is missing important context about irreversibility, permissions, and the required identifier.

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 only parameter is an undocumented 'id' string. The description refers to 'a rule' but never explains that 'id' is the rule identifier, where to obtain it, or what format it uses.

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 (Delete) and resource (a rule) and also discloses the cascade effect on playbook links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as rule_add, rule_get, and playbook_remove.

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 verb 'Delete' implies when the tool is used, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisites must be met. With no exclusions or alternatives named, usage is only implied.

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