remove_sticker

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 one genuinely non-obvious trait: when a sticker appears multiple times, only one instance is removed. However, it says nothing about what happens if the sticker is absent, whether the operation requires specific permissions, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the edge-case qualifier second. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and one edge case but omits the no-op/error behavior when the sticker is missing and any auth or response expectations.

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 cardId, boardId, and sticker are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of the sticker emoji being the target; the duplicate-handling note is behavioral rather than param-level. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove) and resource (sticker) plus its scope (from a card), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_sticker. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse tool, but the intent is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as add_sticker, nor any preconditions (e.g., whether the sticker must exist on the card). The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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