remove_office

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a deletion operation but does not mention irreversibility, side effects on the current office/session, whether authentication is required, or what happens to related state.

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 a single short sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded around the key action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits label semantics, expected return behavior, side effects, and any usage context, so an agent must make several assumptions before invoking 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?

The schema defines only a required 'label' string with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description never explains that 'label' identifies which saved token to delete or what values/formats are accepted; the mapping is only inferable from the phrase 'saved token.'

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 Japanese description '保存済みトークンを削除する。' ('Deletes saved token.') states a specific action and resource: deleting a saved token. It clearly identifies this as a removal operation and is distinct from read/auth sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related office tools like use_office or list_offices.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as use_office, authenticate, or auth_status. The description only states what it does, with no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should trigger its use.

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