Clear Document Property

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema—it repeats the 'by id or name' detail but does not disclose what happens if the property does not exist, whether the operation is reversible, or what success/failure looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function efficiently. It does not waste words, though it could include a bit more behavioral detail without becoming bloated. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the annotations cover basic safety traits. The description explains the main action and the property parameter. However, it lacks guidance on use cases vs. sibling tools, and the non-idempotent mutation nature could warrant more detail. It is complete enough for a minimal viable description but leaves room for improvement.

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 only 33% (only 'property' has a description). The description compensates slightly by repeating that the property can be specified by id or name, but it does not explain 'docId' or 'workspaceId'. Since the description must carry more weight for low-coverage schemas, this is insufficient.

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 specifies the action ('remove') and the resource ('a custom property value from a document'), and adds the distinction 'by id or name' to disambiguate from sibling tools like delete_custom_property (which removes the property definition itself) and set_doc_property (which writes a value). This is a specific verb+resource combination that fully distinguishes the tool.

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 implies the clear use case: removing an existing custom property value from a document, as opposed to deleting the property definition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context from sibling names helps, but explicit guidance is absent.

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