remove_item

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether the removal is permanent, whether history is retained, whether the item must already exist, how an item is identified, or what happens if it doesn't match — all critical for a mutation tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action comes first, followed by per-parameter notes with concrete examples. Slightly awkward phrasing ('out of the drawer record') and line-wrapped formatting, but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and parameter examples partially compensate for the empty schema. Against a destructive-intent tool with zero annotation coverage, however, the absence of permanence/error/identification details leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does real work for two of three parameters: reason is explained with examples ('battery dead') and gone_to is marked optional with an example ('sister's apartment'). The required item parameter is left unexplained — no indication whether it is a name, an id, or a free-text search key.

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?

States a concrete verb and object: taking an item out of the drawer record, with the terminal categories (used up, given away, binned) clarifying what kind of removal this is. That implicitly separates it from mark_moved and where_is, though the distinction is never made explicit by naming a 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 phrases 'used up, given away, binned' give implied usage guidance, i.e. this is for items that are permanently gone. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to mark_moved for items that merely changed location, which is the most likely routing confusion among these siblings.

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