text-remove

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is extremely sparse and does not state whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects linked data, or what happens if the named data-block does not exist. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted words studly. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is extremely brief and could include more useful detail without becoming verbose, so it does not get a 5.

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?

The tool is a single-parameter removal operation with no annotations and no output schema, so its simplicity could justify a higher score, but the description does not cover important operational details like error handling or reversibility. Given the tool's simplicity Credit, a minimum viable description would include more behavioral context, making this incomplete.

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 only one parameter, 'name' (a string), with 0% schema description coverage Gradient. The description adds no information about the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema shows, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Since the parameter is simple, a higher score is possible, but the description provides no semantic context, so it earns a low score.

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 'Remove a Text data-block' indicates the action (remove) and the resource (Text data-block), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from other removal tools like particles-remove or modifiers-remove, though the subject is unique. It is clear but lacks detail on scope, so it is adequate but not exceptional.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the text data-block must exist), no mention of undoability, and no naming of alternative tools for similar operations. The context of this tool within the text-* family is implied but not explicit.

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