ass_remove_script_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral detail beyond the name: the return payload shape and the key-not-present case (removed=False), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about mutability safety, undo behavior, or permission requirements for a destructive key deletion, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the return contract second. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailing the return dict is not strictly necessary, though it is harmless. The real gap is the undocumented doc_id semantics for a mutation tool with no annotations, which leaves an agent unsure which document it is deleting from.

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 0% for both parameters. The description explains neither 'key' (the exact [Script Info] field name) nor 'doc_id', and crucially never says what the null default means (presumably the active document). With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a [Script Info] key'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling read/write pair ass_get_script_info and ass_set_script_info. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ass_set_script_info or ass_get_script_info, no prerequisite context, and no note on which document is affected. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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