remove_lecture_frag

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior: deletes fragments and may delete attached mindmap. Includes constraints, return format {ok, removed}, and workflow context (override step). No contradictions.

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?

Description is dense with useful info but well-structured: purpose sentence, warning block, parameter list. Slightly verbose but front-loaded and organized. Could be trimmed but effective.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, destructive behavior, constraints, parameter defaults, return format, prerequisite (login). Comprehensive for an agent to use correctly given the complexity and lack of annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully: explains subject_prefix (LIKE delete), book_id (default), owner (omitted=logged in), and return value. Adds meaning beyond schema fields.

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 tool deletes lecture fragments under a subjectId prefix for an owner. It explains the LIKE delete behavior, effects on kgMindmap, and prefix length constraints, distinguishing it from other tools like save_lecture_frag and delete_questions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: warns against using a lesson-level prefix to retain the mindmap, notes BE forces prefix length >=9, and explains owner default. Does not name alternative tools but gives clear usage constraints.

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