remove_step

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive nature ('Delete') and a key side effect ('rewire the steps that used it'), which is useful. But it does not mention whether the change is reversible, whether it affects other query definitions, or what happens when rewiring is impossible.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the critical rewiring side effect. Every part of the sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is too sparse. An agent does not learn what 'source' and 'query' mean, whether dry_run suppresses the actual delete, or what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It adds some semantic context by referring to relationships between steps, but it does not clarify the roles of 'source', 'query', or 'dry_run' beyond what the bare parameter names suggest.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a step'), and immediately explains the distinct side effect: rewiring dependent steps to the step they read from. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like rename_step and delete_query.

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 the tool: when a step should be removed and its dependents rewired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as rename_step or delete_query, leaving the usage context to inference.

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