gavaza_evidence_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral details. It does mention that the copied file is also removed, which is a side effect, but it does not state whether the removal is permanent or reversible, whether any permissions are required, or whether the operation affects related data such as requests or reports. For a destructive tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the affected resource without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, delivering clear information in minimal space.

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 operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the permanence of the deletion. Although an output schema exists, the description should still provide context about consequences and any cascading effects. The description only covers the basic action and one side effect, leaving important contextual gaps.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter evidence_id, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It does not explain what evidence_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the bare schema definition, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an evidence entry and its copied file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gavaza_evidence_add and gavaza_evidence_list, which handle creation and listing respectively.

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 implies the tool is used to delete evidence entries, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as the entry needing to exist, or indicate that alternatives like listing or adding might be more appropriate in other scenarios. The usage is implied by the action but not elaborated.

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