remove_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (removes element and subtree) and a key constraint (root cannot be removed), but does not mention side effects, return values, or whether the operation is destructive beyond the obvious. It provides minimal but useful behavioral context.

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 one concise sentence plus a constraint, with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the constraint is clearly stated, making it easy to parse.

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 (two parameters, no output schema), but the description leaves parameter semantics unexplained and does not describe what happens after removal (e.g., whether the plan is returned). It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for confident invocation.

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 description must compensate, but it does not mention nodeId or planId at all. The agent must infer which parameter refers to the element and which to the plan. This is a significant gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an element (and its subtree) from a test plan'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_element, update_element, and move_element. The added constraint about the root TestPlan node further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage for deleting elements but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions beyond the root node. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other mutation tools, so guidance is only implied by the action itself.

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