Remove entry from daily monitoring

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses return values (removed=true/false), non-idempotency for duplicate names, and the exact-one-entry-per-call behavior, with a concrete note about repeated calls. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence, followed by return semantics and a clearly marked NOTE for the edge-case warning. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema and small parameter set, this description is complete. It covers purpose, identification method, return values, the non-idempotency trap, and gives a preferred approach, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the interaction between 'by' and 'value' in the context of duplicate entries, and provides a preference for 'by=ref' to address a specific entry, which is not in the schema.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('entry from easycompliance's DAILY monitoring list'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on removal rather than checking or adding. It also specifies the two identification methods (name or ref), making the 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 provides clear guidance on when to use by=name vs by=ref, and explicitly warns 'do not retry after removed=true' and 'prefer by="ref" with unique references'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the instructions cover the main usage decisions and edge cases.

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