remove_query_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('remove') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is permanent/reversible, what happens to affected URLs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does in practical terms, what the parameters mean, or the behavioral implications. For a tool that modifies configuration, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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 'URL normalization parameter' but doesn't explain what 'site_url' or 'parameter' represent, their formats, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool removes a URL normalization parameter, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what a 'URL normalization parameter' is or distinguish this tool from its sibling 'remove_query_parameter' (which appears to be the same tool based on the name) or other removal tools like 'remove_blocked_url' or 'remove_country_region_settings'. The purpose is understandable but vague about the specific domain context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be relevant (like 'enable_disable_query_parameter' or 'get_query_parameters' from the sibling list). There's no explicit or implied context for usage decisions.

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