remove_from_suite

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

The description discloses the key side effect: it removes only the placement, leaving the underlying scenario and other placements intact. This is important transparency, especially since no annotations are provided. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 two concise sentences. It states the action, specifies the parameter, and adds a crucial side-effect clarification without any redundant wording. The structure is direct and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it takes, and what it doesn't affect. The reference to 'list_suites' provides a helpful entry point. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use 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 description clarifies the 'entryId' parameter by tying it to a suite placement and pointing to 'list_suites' for discovery. The 'project' parameter already has a description in the schema. Overall, the description adds meaningful context to the primary parameter, though it could elaborate on what an entry id represents.

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 a suite placement), specifies the identifier (entry id), and distinguishes it from adding or moving entries. It also explicitly notes that the underlying scenario and other placements are unaffected, which sets it apart from similar operations.

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?

It references 'list_suites' for obtaining the entry id, providing a natural precursor. The clarification that only the placement is removed (not the scenario) implicitly guides when to use this tool over more destructive alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling operations.

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