remove_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects site indexing, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required parameters. The description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavior, parameters, and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for safe operation.

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 provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'a feed' but doesn't explain what site_url and feed_url parameters represent, their format, or their relationship. For a tool with 2 required parameters, this is inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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') and resource ('a feed from Bing Webmaster Tools'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'remove_' siblings like remove_blocked_url or remove_site, which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like get_feeds or get_feed_details exist, the description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when this operation is appropriate versus other removal operations.

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