remove_extraction_schema

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that it removes the schema, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether extraction stops immediately, if the operation is reversible, or if any data is destroyed). This is a mutation operation with no disclosed consequences, similar to the under-transparent update_drive example.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, it is so sparse that it barely adds value beyond the tool name itself, so it does not earn a 5, but it is certainly concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks context about the relationship to set_extraction_schema, when removal is appropriate, what happens upon removal (e.g., does extraction stop immediately?), and any prerequisites. This would hinder an agent in deciding when to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not reference domain_id or inbox_id at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no explanation of how to find these IDs or what values are valid. The schema provides only types and required flags, leaving the agent to infer the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('structured extraction schema') and the target ('an inbox'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_extraction_schema (which sets the schema) and delete_inbox (which removes an inbox entirely). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the inverse of set_extraction_schema, nor does it suggest prerequisites such as listing inboxes first to obtain the inbox_id. There is no contextual information about typical workflows or conditions that would favor this tool.

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