nexus_remove_kudos

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST quota, and it discloses the exact return shape (JSON {removeKudos: {success}} or an error string). No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful quota note and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the target user, the transport/quota behavior, and the return shape. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

There is only one parameter, user_id, and the schema already documents its type, minimum, and meaning at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('previously given kudos from a user') and specifies the transport (v2 GraphQL). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling nexus_give_kudos by describing the inverse operation.

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 gives clear context for when to call this tool: to remove kudos already given to a user. It also provides operational guidance about consuming the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST quota, which helps an agent choose an appropriate path, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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