remove_protocol

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 disclosure. It simply says 'Remove' without stating whether the operation is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, or what it returns. For a destructive operation, this is a significant under-disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately brief but sacrifices informational content for brevity.

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?

With a simple one-parameter delete operation, the core action is clear, but the description omits side effects, irreversibility, return value, and behavior on missing IDs. Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations, the tool definition is not fully complete for an agent to invoke 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 only parameter, id, is described only as 'by its ID,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema property name. It clarifies that the ID belongs to the protocol to remove, but does not specify the ID format, source, or error behavior if not found.

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 clear action ('Remove'), a resource ('protocol'), and the method ('by its ID'). It differentiates from sibling tools such as add_protocol and set_protocols, which add or replace rather than delete.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. It is only an action statement, so the agent must infer that removal is appropriate when a protocol ID is available and cleanup is intended.

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