radiant_remove_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a key behavior: the tool returns success even if the alias doesn't exist, and the 'removed' field indicates actual removal. This is valuable non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It also implies a mutation (removal) without explicit destructive warning, which is acceptable given the tool's purpose.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a critical behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 tool with a single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it does, how to interpret the result (via 'removed' field), and there are no edge cases or prerequisites missing. The behavioral note is especially important for correct invocation and result handling.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter 'alias' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It does not add format or constraint details, but none are needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics well.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove an alias from the server-side keyring') with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'radiant_register_key' and 'radiant_list_keys' by focusing on removal, making its purpose 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 description implies when to use this tool: when a key alias needs to be removed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the action is so specific that no sibling could be confused. The note about checking the 'removed' field adds practical usage context, though it doesn't contrast with other tools.

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