paper_download_discard_artifact

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

The description implies a destructive action ('remove') but does not disclose details such as whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects other artifacts, or any associated side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with no annotations and minimal schema information. It does not explain the workflow context (e.g., why discard an artifact, what happens after), nor does it leverage the output schema to provide hints. Given the existence of sibling tools like verify_artifact, more context is needed for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 only parameter, artifact_id, is explained only by its name. The description does not clarify what an artifact_id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, required staging status). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not add meaningful value.

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') and the resource ('a staged artifact from the staging area'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch, probe, and verify by focusing on the discard operation, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., artifact must be staged first), and no indication of when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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