ilm_remove_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'remove' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is reversible, what happens to the index after policy removal, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sections: a purpose statement and parameter documentation. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the Chinese-only presentation might limit accessibility in multilingual contexts, but this doesn't significantly impact conciseness within the given language context.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter, but fails to address critical contextual information: what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions required, side effects, or how this differs from related ILM operations. For a tool that modifies system state, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'index' and provides its purpose ('索引名称' - index name). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema provides. However, it doesn't elaborate on format requirements, constraints, or examples for the index parameter, keeping it at a baseline level of adequacy.

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 ('从索引移除' - remove from index) and the resource ('ILM 策略' - ILM policy), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other ILM policy tools like 'ilm_policy_delete' by specifying it removes a policy from an index rather than deleting the policy definition entirely. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings like 'ilm_add_policy' in terms of opposite operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple ILM-related tools in the sibling list (ilm_add_policy, ilm_policy_create, ilm_policy_delete, ilm_policy_get), but the description doesn't explain when this specific 'remove from index' operation is appropriate versus deleting the policy definition itself or other ILM operations. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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