Supprimer une référence (expérience pro)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the read-modify-write mechanism ('lit la liste actuelle, en retire la référence ciblée, republie le reste') and warning 'Action irréversible'. This adds valuable context about side effects and data handling that annotations (destructiveHint) do not fully cover.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action verb, and includes a crucial warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the operation, the read-modify-write behavior, and the irreversibility warning. The lack of an output schema is not an issue since the tool is straightforward, but the description could have mentioned the response format or any prerequisites beyond verifying the ID.

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 parameters (resourceId, referenceId) are already well-documented. The description adds context about references being embedded in the DT, but this is already present in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 'Supprime' (delete) and identifies the resource as 'référence (expérience professionnelle) du DT d'une ressource', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update reference. It leaves no ambiguity about what action is performed and on what entity.

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 usage when a reference needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling create/update tools, though the verb 'delete' makes the primary use case obvious.

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