remove_dataview_field_tool

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains how removal works for inline vs full-line fields, canonicalized matching, and the effect of providing line_number. It also mentions return values. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but this is sufficient 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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, then a breakdown of behavior, usage guidelines, and return info. Every sentence is relevant and no filler. It is concise yet informative.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage scenarios, and return values well. It could elaborate on error conditions or side effects, but overall it is comprehensive.

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 coverage is 80%, and the description adds context by explaining canonicalized matching and the optional line_number's role. It ties parameters to behavior, e.g., how key and line_number affect removal. This adds value beyond the schema's base descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove a Dataview inline field from a note'. It specifies the verb 'remove', the resource 'Dataview inline field', and the context 'from a note'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_dataview_field_tool and extract_dataview_fields_tool by being explicitly about 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 description includes a 'When to use:' section listing specific scenarios like cleaning up metadata and migrating fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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