remove_export

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it removes only the tracking entry and requires exact match for expression and pattern. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or behavior when entry does not exist. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear header and bullet-like argument list. It avoids unnecessary words and gets to the point quickly. Could be slightly more structured but effective.

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 simple tool with one required param, high schema coverage, and output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it misses details like error scenarios (e.g., entry not found) and confirmation of success, which would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info, adding the exact match nuance already present in the schema. No significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Remove export tracking entry from Project.exports.' It distinguishes that it removes only the tracking entry, not the actual file, and specifies the requirement for exact match. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_exports or export_content.

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 indicates when to use (removing a tracking entry) and provides a caveat about not deleting the file, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The requirement for exact match is mentioned but no guidance on error handling or prerequisites.

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