remove_hyperlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses preservation of text runs and reveals that only the hyperlink element is unwrapped. However, it does not specify behavior when no match is found, error conditions, or permissions needed, leaving some uncertainty.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential aspects. It could be slightly more thorough on edge cases (e.g., multiple hyperlinks in one paragraph) but is largely complete.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: para_id as the paragraph ID and url_or_anchor as URL or bookmark name. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though format specifics (e.g., full URL vs display text) are implicit.

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 a hyperlink wrapper, preserving the text runs inside.' It specifies the resource (hyperlink wrapper) and the verb (remove), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like add_hyperlink or update_hyperlink.

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 usage for removing hyperlinks while keeping text, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_paragraph for full removal). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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