remove_from_perspective

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that removing a table also removes its members, a key side effect. It does not cover reversibility or error handling, but the main behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the nuance is presented efficiently.

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 is adequate for a simple removal tool, covering the core operation and the important table-cascade nuance. It lacks edge-case details like what happens if the object is not in the perspective, but no output schema is needed for this 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?

The schema already covers objectType and the conditional table requirement. The description mostly reinforces these, adding the cascade effect which is more behavioral than parameter-specific. It does not clarify sessionId or perspective beyond their names.

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 identifies the resource 'perspective'. It clearly differentiates object types and explains the scope of removal, distinguishing it from add_to_perspective.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool versus other actions by explaining the different object types and the table requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_to_perspective.

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