remove_education

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: that this is a write (destructive) operation and that it validates record ownership before deleting. It still omits irreversibility, failure behavior, and required permissions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its nature, followed by lookup instructions and the safety check. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's nature, ID discovery, and ownership validation. Given zero annotations and a destructive operation, it could say more about irreversibility or error cases, but it is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value by explaining how each required ID is obtained (search_candidates_by_name for candidate_id, get_candidate's educations array for education_id) — provenance the schema itself does not convey.

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 and resource ('Remove an education entry from a candidate') and identifies it as a write operation. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like add_education, remove_employment, and delete_candidate without opening any schema.

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 concrete routing guidance: use search_candidates_by_name for candidate_id and get_candidate to read the educations array for education_id. It does not, however, state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or any exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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