gflow_instructions_rm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, and the description adds that it is credit-free, but it does not disclose irreversibility, permissions, or downstream effects on the project brief. This is a meaningful gap for a deletion-like operation.

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 with no wasted words. Every clause adds value: what is removed, from where, how it is selected, and the cost implication.

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 tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits irreversibility, preconditions, and selector-conflict behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational context around removal is still under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning by clarifying that title and card_id are alternative selectors and that exactly one must be used. However, the required project parameter and the profile parameter are not explicitly described, leaving part of the schema semantically uncovered.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a precise resource ('one instruction card from a Flow project's brief'), and the selection mechanism ('by title or card id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like instructions_add, instructions_list, and instructions_set_enabled.

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 conveys invocation constraints—exactly one card and one selector ('title or card id'), plus 'Credits-free' as a cost consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when removal should be preferred over alternatives such as set_enabled or toggle_mode, nor does it mention any preconditions.

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