document.remove_shape

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it only says 'delete'. It does not disclose that removal is destructive, whether the operation is undoable via document.undo, what happens to a shape's text or group membership, or how it behaves when the id is unknown — all critical for an irreversible mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. Brevity is not the problem here — the sentence is arguably too terse rather than bloated.

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 one-parameter tool the description covers the call mechanics, but with no annotations and no output schema it should at minimum say whether deletion is reversible and what a failure response looks like. Adequate to invoke, thin on consequences.

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%, but with only one required string parameter the surface is small. The phrase 'by id' does establish that shape_id is an identifier rather than a name or index, but it omits format and where to obtain a valid id (document.list_shapes / document.get_shape).

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?

"Delete a shape by id" names a specific verb (delete) and resource (shape) plus the selection key, which distinguishes it from slide-level deletion siblings like document.remove_slide and document.delete_slides and from document.add_shape. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as document.delete_slides for multiple deletions, document.ungroup for grouped shapes, or document.undo for reverting. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are stated.

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