remove_source

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 an important behavioral consequence: already stored articles from the removed source remain in the archive. This goes beyond the basic removal action and helps set expectations about non-destructive side effects.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is stated first, followed by a relevant usage condition and side effect, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter removal tool, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, and the key side effect on archived articles. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Minor gaps like error behavior or idempotency are not critical here.

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 does not explain the 'url' parameter beyond calling the item a 'feed'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it merely says 'Remove a feed' without explicitly clarifying that the url parameter is the identifier of the feed to remove. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool removes a feed from feeds.txt, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_source, and the context of user intent ('no longer wants a source') reinforces its purpose.

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 gives a usage condition: 'Use when the user no longer wants a source.' It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the condition is clear and sufficient for a single-purpose removal tool.

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