Remove Redshift AOV

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the conditional nature of the removal (only if name/type match), which is useful, but does not explain what happens when the condition fails (error vs no-op) or that the operation is irreversible. More behavioral detail would be expected for a destructive 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and condition, with zero fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It conveys the core behavior and precondition, but leaves out error semantics, return value, and the purpose of the optional document_name and render_data_name. Given the presence of schema descriptions for those optional params, this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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?

Schema description coverage is 40%, leaving the required parameters (index, expected_name, expected_type) undocumented. The description indirectly clarifies their roles by mentioning 'indexed', 'expected name', and 'type', but does not explain optional parameters or value conventions. It partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 ('one indexed Redshift AOV') with a clear condition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rs_clear_aovs (bulk removal) and rs_upsert_aov (add/update) by emphasizing single indexed, conditional removal.

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 phrase 'when its expected name and type still match' gives a clear precondition for use, implying a guarded removal workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the conditional context is strong enough to guide selection among AOV-manipulation siblings.

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