remove_header

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that Authorization is unaffected. However, it does not mention what happens if the header does not exist (likely safe due to idempotency), leaving a minor gap. The description adds context beyond annotations but is not fully 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the action and resource, and the second provides a critical caveat. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key exception. It is adequate for selection and invocation, though a brief mention of behavior on non-existent header 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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds semantic context by specifying it removes a 'custom' HTTP header and clarifying the Authorization exception, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'custom HTTP header', distinguishing it from sibling 'add_header' and explicitly noting it does not affect Authorization, which aligns with sibling context.

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 provides explicit context: use when removing a custom header, and for Authorization use 'set_auth_token' with empty string instead. This offers clear guidance, though it does not cover other potential when-not scenarios.

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