remove_tool_affordance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'Drop', implying deletion, but fails to mention if the action is permanent, what happens to related data, authorization requirements, or error conditions. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 concise at one sentence, but it includes a version prefix 'v2.1.0 —' that is not essential and may distract. The core information is efficiently communicated, though it could be slightly cleaner without the version.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no nested objects), the description is still incomplete. It does not specify the return value, potential errors, or prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks context for successful invocation and error handling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add value beyond 'type: string' and 'required: true'. It only repeats 'by toolName' without elaborating on valid values, format, or how to obtain toolNames. This offers minimal additional meaning to the agent.

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 'Drop a tool-affordance record by toolName' uses the verb 'Drop' and specifies the resource 'tool-affordance record' and the key parameter. It clearly indicates the action of deletion and is distinguishable from siblings like list_tool_affordances (listing) and get_tool_affordance_stats (statistics), though it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without context such as prerequisites, consequences, or examples. For instance, it does not mention that the tool should be used when you want to permanently delete a tool affordance record, as opposed to just removing it from a view.

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