remove_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses that the call is non-destructive on its own (creates a pending proposal requiring resolve_proposal) and warns of a cascading side effect ('removing a record breaks generated type aliases'). It omits whether the record must already exist and what happens to dependent buffers/connectors.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the required follow-up, then the risk note. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious facts: the two-step confirm workflow and the type-alias side effect. Only minor gaps remain (preconditions on record existence, effect on dependent artifacts).

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 100% — the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (PascalCase name). The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Propose removal of an existing record') and immediately clarifies that this is not an immediate mutation but a pending proposal. This distinguishes it cleanly from immediate-effect siblings like remove_task/remove_binary and from mutating siblings like set_record/rename_record.

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?

Gives concrete follow-up guidance ('call resolve_proposal to confirm'), which is the key usage step in a two-phase workflow. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus set_record with empty config, or how it differs from rename_record), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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