remove_annotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the document ('will update the JCAD document') and warns about needing current state. This is meaningful beyond the implied remove operation, though it doesn't detail reversibility or return behavior.

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 and includes only necessary elements: purpose, parameter hint, and critical warning. Formatting is slightly awkward with indentation, but each sentence contributes to safe usage.

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 simple two-parameter remove operation, the description covers the core purpose, a mutation warning, and a usage prerequisite. It lacks explicit return value info, but the operation is straightforward and the warning suffices for basic completeness.

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%. The description documents annotation_id ('The id of the annotation') but jcad_path is only vaguely referenced in the warning. It fails to fully explain both parameters, leaving a gap for the user.

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 'Remove an annotation from the document'—a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_annotation and generic remove.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool' to understand document state before removal. This is clear context, though it does not discuss alternatives or exclusions.

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