remove_artifact_group_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key limitation (root index.html exclusion) and hints at the tool's alterative usage, but does not disclose side effects such as permanence of removal or error behavior for missing paths. Still, the disclosed restriction is valuable context beyond the basic action.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, followed by a focused limitation and alternatives. No redundant information.

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, with full schema parameter coverage and an output schema present. The description covers the main usage scenario and key exclusion (root index.html), which is sufficient for most calls. Missing details like error handling for non-existent paths are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by referencing 'root index.html', which clarifies that the 'path' parameter is a file path and that there is a special entry-point file. This enriches the schema's simple descriptions.

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 'Remove a file from an artifact group,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that the root index.html cannot be removed this way and directing to edit_artifact_group_item or delete_artifact_group as alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it states the root index.html can't be removed, and suggests replacing its content or deleting the whole group. This directly addresses the main decision point for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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