ass_remove_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the orphan-prevention policy, the error condition when reassign_to is missing for a used style, and the return shape including what "reassigned" counts. It omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as permissions, undoability, or effects on unused styles, but the core mutation semantics are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main action and policy, then uses clear Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized and every sentence serves a purpose. The Returns section is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, though it usefully explains the meaning of "reassigned," so it does not quite reach maximal conciseness.

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 no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: purpose, parameter meanings, the error condition, and return fields. It covers the core invocation logic thoroughly. Minor omissions like behavior when the style does not exist or reusability of the operation keep it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: name, doc_id, and reassign_to are each given meaningful explanations beyond their type. The doc_id description clarifies the special None value for the current document, and reassign_to explains its conditional role and error consequence. Format constraints or examples beyond the basic meaning are not provided, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 and resource: "Delete a style." It also adds the distinctive policy "refusing to orphan lines that still use it," which distinguishes it from siblings like ass_add_style or ass_update_style. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against any sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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 clearly explains the conditional use of reassign_to: "when the style is still used, the name of the style the lines should be moved to before the style is deleted." It also states the consequence of omission: "Without it a used style is an error." It does not, though, explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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