Remove Person

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals danger, and the description adds important context beyond it: the deletion applies to all relationships and spans EVERY tree, which is a significant cascading side effect. It does not state irreversibility or whether undo applies, which would be useful for a destructive global operation, so it falls short of 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The scope constraint is front-loaded, and the alternative routing sentence follows immediately.

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 a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, a destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description provides exactly the missing decision-critical context: global scope and the single-tree alternative. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well documented in the schema with format and source hints (tree UUID/name, person UUID). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a person') plus a critical scope qualifier ('all relationships from EVERY tree'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling alternative set_tree_members(remove=True), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus its closest alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-this versus when-to-use-the-alternative rule: use this for deletion across every tree, use set_tree_members(remove=True) to remove only one tree appearance. The routing condition is unambiguous.

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