rag_remove_source

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that all indexed chunks are deleted and the source is removed from configuration, and it mentions the return type. It could specify irreversibility more strongly, but 'deletes' and 'removes' adequately convey the destructive nature.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear main statement, a one-line elaboration, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description is fairly complete: it covers what is deleted, what is removed, and what is returned. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are not essential for basic usage. It could note that removal is permanent, but the language strongly implies it.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the single parameter 'name' with an example, clarifying the expected input format. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove'), the resource ('documentation source'), and the scope ('and its indexed chunks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rag_add_source and rag_search.

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 usage context is implied: if you need to remove a source and its data, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the decision to the agent.

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