Remove a document registration

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that only the registration is removed and the underlying file survives, and it documents the return shape {removed, connectionId, documentId} despite there being no output schema. It still omits error behavior (e.g., unknown documentId) and any permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: action and scope first, the non-destructive guarantee second, the return contract last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, and with the return shape supplied inline, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is failure semantics and how to resolve the two opaque string identifiers, which the absent schema descriptions leave unaddressed.

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 schema carries no semantics and the description must compensate—yet it only names connectionId and documentId without explaining their format, origin, or how to obtain them. An agent learns nothing about the parameters beyond the names already in 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?

States a specific verb (Remove), a precise resource (document registration), and the exact key pair (connectionId, documentId) that identifies it. The clarification that only the registration—not the file—is removed distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like edit_document or open_document.

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 purpose implies when to use it (detaching a registered document from a connection), and the 'underlying file is never deleted' line hints at the intended scope. However, no alternative is named and no conditions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the registration does not exist, or which sibling to use to actually delete a file) are given.

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