docshelf_remove_document

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds significant context: removes file, split sections, metadata entry, regenerates INDEX.md, and offers dry_run for safe preview. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise: three sentences with front-loaded purpose, no unnecessary words. 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers effects, dry-run, and post-step responsibilities. It is complete for safe agent usage.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters thoroughly (e.g., document accepts filename/slug/title, dry_run effect). The description repeats some of this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'document', including what is removed (file, split sections, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like add, rename, rebuild by the specific action and side effects.

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 explains acceptable inputs (filename, slug, title) and mentions dry_run for preview. It also notes that the caller must commit/push. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but context is clear for a removal tool.

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