remove_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral hint is 'Phase B stub', which warns that the implementation may be incomplete. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive to the element, any side effects, or error handling. This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two short fragments with no filler. It front-loads the verb and noun, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted wording, though it may be under-specified 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not mention return values (though an output schema exists), nor does it explain the difference between removing a symbol and deleting an element. The 'Phase B stub' hint suggests unreliability but offers no further context. An agent would likely need to look elsewhere for safe 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%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters. It does not clarify that diagram_id identifies the diagram and element_id identifies the symbol's element (or the symbol itself). The agent is left with only parameter names, which 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 states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'an element symbol from a diagram', which is specific and distinct from siblings like delete_element (which would remove the entire element). It immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only removes the symbol while preserving the underlying element, nor does it contrast with delete_element. The agent must infer the usage from the name and sibling list.

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