remove_test_plan_item

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Remove' action is consistent. The description adds value by mentioning the source of item IDs, but does not elaborate on side effects beyond removal.

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: one sentence plus a practical instruction. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (unseen but present), the description adequately covers prerequisites and basic operation. It could mention that removal is idempotent or safe, but annotations cover that.

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%, with generic descriptions ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description does not add specific meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra context.

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 test case from a test plan by item ID, with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_test_plan_item' and 'delete_test_plan'.

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 a hint to obtain item IDs from 'get_test_plan', implying a prerequisite but lacks explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context.

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