remove_case_document

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses permanence and permission requirements but does not specify what happens to the document (e.g., is it deleted or just unlinked?), nor side effects, error handling, or idempotency.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the core purpose, second adds prerequisites. No redundant information. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Covers core action and prerequisites but lacks details on return values, error handling, and what happens if the link doesn't exist. No output schema exacerbates the gap. For a removal tool, basic behavioral completeness is missing.

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 100%, so the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema (reiterating validity and permissions). It does not provide new semantic details for the parameters beyond what is already in the input schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'remove' and resource 'document linked to a case', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like delete_attachment or delete_case. It explicitly states the operation removes the link, not the document itself.

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?

Description mentions prerequisites (valid IDs, permissions) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No mention of alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., update_attachment or delete_case).

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