remove_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes from the index and optionally deletes the file from disk, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points for arguments and returns, with each sentence adding value. There is no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. With no annotations and an output schema, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, so it only provides parameter names and types. The description explains that 'filepath' is the path to the document file and 'delete_file' controls whether to also delete the file from disk, with a default value. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could elaborate on format expectations for 'filepath'.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove a document from the knowledge base index.' This specifies the verb (remove) and resource (document from knowledge base index). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' operations that might exist elsewhere, though among the listed siblings, 'remove_document' is unique in its removal 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the document must exist in the index, or compare it to siblings like 'update_document' or 'reindex_documents' for related operations. The lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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