remove_list_target_usages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a destructive operation ('Remove all usages') but does not state whether this is reversible, what specific usages are affected, or what consequences occur (e.g., whether the list target itself is retained). This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 sentence with no wasted words or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, communicating the core action immediately. Given the simple tool signature, this brevity is appropriate.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'list target' is, what 'usages' refers to, or what happens after removal. The single parameter is covered, but missing behavioral context leaves the description insufficient for an agent to safely and confidently invoke the 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 input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('List target ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this meets the baseline for adequate parameter documentation.

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') and the resource ('all usages of a list target'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'delete_list_target' tool. However, 'usages' is a somewhat vague term that isn't elaborated, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is removed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for cleaning up references to a list target as opposed to deleting the target itself, nor does it reference any sibling tools like 'delete_list_target' or 'update_list_target'.

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