remove_visible_foreign_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scope (only modifies the visible-foreign-keys list, not the actual database constraint), the staging behavior, and the return value. It clearly details the two accepted forms of the foreign_key parameter. It does not mention potential errors or side effects (e.g., what happens if the key/index is invalid), but the core behavior is well described., so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, a concise 'why' paragraph, and clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value, including examples that clarify ambiguous parameter types. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the Returns text is sufficient. The description covers the main context: what the tool does, the staging behavior, and the parameter forms. It does not explain valid values for 'context' beyond examples, nor error handling for invalid indices or missing foreign keys. Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps that prevent a 5.

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% and the input schema has no field descriptions, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It thoroughly explains table_name, context (with examples), and foreign_key including both a list reference [schema, constraint] and an integer index (0-indexed). The examples demonstrate real usage for both parameter forms. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Remove a foreign key from the visible-foreign-keys list for a specific context.' This is a specific verb (remove) + resource (visible-foreign-keys list), and the context parameter is mentioned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_visible_foreign_keys, add_visible_foreign_key, and reorder_visible_foreign_keys by focusing on removal from the list rather than setting, adding, or reordering.

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 clear context: it is a convenience tool for removing related tables without replacing the entire visible-foreign-keys annotation, and changes are staged until apply_annotations() is called. This implicitly tells the user to prefer set_visible_foreign_keys for wholesale replacement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives as fallbacks or state when NOT to use this tool beyond the whole-list scenario, so it stops short of perfect usage guidance.

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