remove_indexed_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive side effects (drops Milvus chunks and Neo4j entities) and a safety nuance (preserves entities still referenced elsewhere). It does not explicitly state that the operation is irreversible, but the 'drops' language strongly implies permanence. This is adequate for a simple removal tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key side-effect and preservation note. 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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what gets removed and what is preserved. It does not mention potential errors or asynchronous behavior, but for a straightforward removal operation the description is reasonably complete. A slightly more complete version would note irreversibility, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides only the name 'source_id' with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on what constitutes a valid source_id or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter semantics are left entirely to the parameter name.

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 action (remove) on a specific resource (indexed source) and describes the primary effect (drops Milvus chunks and Neo4j entities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all about indexing, searching, or explaining code. The removal tool is unique among the siblings.

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 when an indexed source needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools. There are no alternative removal tools, so no differentiation is needed, but it also does not mention any preconditions (e.g., source must exist) or post-conditions. It does mention a preservation nuance which gives some usage context, but overall it leaves the when-not-to-use implicit.

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