remove_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns how many filters were removed') and scope-dependent parameter behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error handling (e.g., no matching filter), or whether the removal is irreversible. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and providing necessary usage details in a compact form. Every clause adds value with no 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 tool has no output schema, so the description's note on the return count is valuable. It covers the main use cases and parameter dependencies. Minor gaps include no mention of behavior when no filter matches or invalid session, but for a simple filter removal tool it is adequately complete.

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 adds interaction rules between scope and the page/visual parameters, which are not fully evident from the schema alone. It clarifies that page and visual requirements depend on scope, and that matching is by table[field]. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'a matching filter (by table[field])' with a defined scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hide_filter or add_visual_filter by specifying removal and the scope options.

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 explicit parameter usage rules for each scope: 'For scope=visual pass page+visual; for scope=page pass page; scope=report needs neither.' This is clear, actionable guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the scope-specific instructions effectively guide correct invocation.

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