remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the tool 'will update the JCAD document at the given jcad_path,' revealing its mutating nature. It also documents the return value as 'the document itself.' While it does not detail all side effects, it provides substantial behavioral insight.

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 concise, with a one-line purpose, a brief param/return section, and a prominent warning. The warning is placed effectively at the end, adding useful context without bloating the text. The formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

This simple mutation tool is well described for its context: it explains the mutation, the prerequisite state check, and the return value. It does not cover error cases or dependency impacts, but given the tool's simplicity and lacking annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It defines 'name' as 'The name of the object to remove,' and the warning mentions 'jcad_path' as the document path. Both parameters are thus clarified, but the description does not provide full syntax or format details, and 'jcad_path' is only implicitly defined.

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 function as 'Remove an object from the document.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'object' are specific, and the phrase 'from the document' clarifies scope. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'remove_annotation,' the term 'object' provides implicit differentiation.

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 gives a clear usage prerequisite: 'To understand the current state of the document, you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool.' This provides context for when it is safe to call the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping short of a full 5.

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