indicator_remove

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

Annotations already cover the destructive, non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: the removal is verified by a subsequent absence check. It says nothing further about what else is affected, permission needs, or failure modes beyond that post-condition.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and the scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity trades into under-specification rather than wasted words.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits the safety rails that are actually important: the expected_layout_id mismatch abort and the tab-target requirement. An agent must read the schema to learn that failure can occur before writing, which is exactly what the description should have surfaced.

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 100% (entity_id, target_id, expected_layout_id all documented in-schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as the layout-mismatch abort semantics or how target_id is resolved.

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 has a specific verb ('Remove') and a cardinality constraint ('exactly one'), but the resource is called an 'entity' rather than an indicator or study. The tool name fills the gap, yet the description itself does not distinguish this from sibling removers such as drawing_remove or study_template_delete.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus indicator_list/indicator_add or other removal tools, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The only usage-adjacent signal is the schema note that target_id is 'Required for changes', which is not in the description.

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