remove_exclusion_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: removing a rule does not affect previously deleted memories. This is important for an agent to understand the tool's side effects. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible or any permissions required.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It leads with a version indicator and immediately states the action and scope. Every sentence adds value.

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 delete-by-id tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, the resource, the id requirement, and a critical behavioral caveat (no memory restoration). No additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and the schema already provides a clear description ('Rule id (exclusion-...)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema offers, so baseline score 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Drop' and identifies the resource as 'exclusion rule by id'. It clearly distinguishes this removal operation from sibling tools like add_exclusion_rule or list_exclusion_rules.

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 explicitly states what the tool does not do ('Does NOT restore previously deleted memories') and explains the contract ('user said forget'). This provides valuable usage context, though it could be more explicit about when to use this tool versus alternatives like forget_memory.

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