research_remove_paper

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

The description discloses that removal affects 'all derived data (summaries, ideas, embeddings)', which is important behavioral context. However, it does not state whether removal is permanent or reversible, nor does it mention any confirmation requirement. With no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 structure: a one-line summary of purpose followed by an Args section that explains each parameter. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 removal tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main action and side effects. It does not detail error handling or prerequisites (e.g., paper must exist), but it is largely complete for typical use.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: 'arxiv_id' is described as 'arXiv ID of the paper to remove', and 'delete_files' as 'Also delete cached files (default True)'. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose and default behavior.

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 a paper and all derived data' and specifies the resource 'from the local library'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like research_search_papers and research_list_library by focusing on deletion.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., paper must exist) or situations where removal is not recommended. Siblings like research_get_paper_details or research_verify_novelty are not mentioned in contrast.

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