remove_identifier

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose whether this action is destructive (removing an identifier might be irreversible), whether it requires specific permissions, or whether it has side effects on related data. The description only says 'remove', which implies mutation but adds no detail about consequences, reversibility, or logical deletion vs hard deletion.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and target. There is no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotationshare, the description is incomplete. It does not mention any output or response, which is not critical since there is no output schema, but more importantly, it lacks information about error conditions, required permissions, or what happens after removal. The tool has 3 parameters including a required animal_id and identifier_id, and the description barely explains the operation. For a tool that could be destructive, the description should provide more context on usage and consequences.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: each parameter has a description, including 'farm_id' which notes it is optional if default is set. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents each parameter clearly, the description does not need to compensate. The description adds nothing about parameter relationships or validation requirements, but the schema is sufficient.

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 ('remove') and resource ('identifier') and clarifies that it applies to an animal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_identifier' and 'delete_record', though it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., removing an identifier from an animal's record). The phrase 'from an animal' provides enough context to understand the operation.

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. It does not mention that 'add_identifier' is the opposite operation, nor does it specify any prerequisites (e.g., the animal must exist). There is no context on when it is appropriate to remove an identifier versus updating or deleting it. The sibling tools include both 'add_identifier' and 'update_record', but no exclusions or conditions are given.

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