ruddur_remove_heading_collaborator

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the content.manage scope requirement, which is a useful auth-related detail not present in annotations, but it does not elaborate on other consequences of removal (e.g., irreversibility or impact on related data).

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 two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word serves a purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and required scope, but for a destructive mutation with no output schema, it could mention the result or confirmation flow (though the confirm parameter is documented in the schema). It is acceptable but minimal for a sensitive operation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('Heading collaborator'), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD operations like add/update/list. It also specifies the required scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage from the verb 'Remove' and notes a required scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides a prerequisite but no exclusions or alternative references.

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