remove_body_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive nature and error behavior, but lacks details on transaction requirements, reversibility, or side effects. More context would improve 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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose, item types, and error behavior. No wasted words.

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 has many siblings, and the description does not provide enough context to differentiate it (e.g., specifically for body items). The 'path' parameter is unexplained. Lacks output schema. Adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially explains the 'name' parameter (must be a Textbox, Image, or Tablix), but provides no meaning for the 'path' parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use the parameters correctly.

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 action (remove), the resource (named item from body/report items), and specifies the item types (Textbox, Image, Tablix). It also notes the error behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_body_* or remove_footer_item.

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 mentions that the tool is destructive and raises an error if the name is not found, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like remove_footer_item or remove_header_item. It implies use for body items only.

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