remove_footer_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or safety concerns (e.g., whether this is destructive). The description only mentions the target element, lacking 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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it is not self-contained as it references another tool. It lacks a direct statement of the action. Conciseness is good, but clarity is compromised.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least specify what 'name' and 'path' refer to. It does not, leaving the agent under-informed. The minimum viable completeness is not achieved.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'name' and 'path' parameters. Without explanation, the agent must infer their roles, which is insufficient.

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 tool name 'remove_footer_item' clearly indicates removal of a footer item. The description adds context by referencing 'remove_header_item' and specifying 'for <PageFooter>', making the purpose clear. However, the description relies on knowledge of the sibling tool for full clarity.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_body_item or remove_header_item. The context of sibling tools is present, but the description offers no explicit differentiation or usage context.

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