remove_child_from_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, and error handling. The description merely labels it as a 'mutation' and gives an example, but does not explain whether removing a child is destructive, if it can be undone, what happens if the child does not exist, or what access rights are required. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing operation.

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 very short and front-loaded with the category 'Cases · mutation'. The example variables are compact and structured. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 removing a child from a case, the description lacks critical context: what actually happens (deletion vs unlinking), whether the child is removed permanently, what return value to expect, and how it interacts with related tools like add_children_to_case. The example helps with input structure but does not address these gaps. No output schema exists, so the description should explain outcomes but does not.

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 schema has descriptions for both parameters, but the 'input' description is just 'GraphQL: RemoveChildFromCaseInput!' with no internal structure. The example variables in the description compensate by revealing the expected shape (caseId, child with childId and childType). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain allowed childType values, whether childId is required for all types, or the role of customer_slug beyond its schema description.

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 'mutation removeChildFromCase' and provides an example variables block with caseId and child details, which clearly implies removing a child (e.g., a DISCOVER_TASK) from a case. The name itself is precise, and the example reinforces the action. However, it relies on the tool name and example rather than an explicit verbal description, and does not distinguish from siblings beyond the 'remove' vs 'add' contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_children_to_case, nor any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this mutation should be invoked. The example variables show how to call it but not why or when. This leaves the agent without contextual decision support.

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