remove_answer_good

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It only states the removal action without mentioning permissions, idempotency, or behavior when the endorsement does not exist. This adds no extra context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and object. No unnecessary details or repetition, making it maximally concise.

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 simple mutation tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning through the schema. However, it omits behavioral details such as permissions or error conditions, though these are not essential for basic invocation. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema documents all 3 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a specific resource: 'good answer endorsement' from an answer or follow-up. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mark_answer_good and other actions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context for when to use this tool: when an endorsement needs to be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling mark_answer_good and the action's specificity.

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