Remove a bibliography entry by citation ID from a CSL-YAML file, creating a backup before changes are written.
Remove a bibliography entry by ID. Creates a .bak backup before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The citation ID to delete | |
| file | Yes | Absolute path to the CSL-YAML bibliography file (required). Look for "bibliography:" in pandoc.yaml or the YAML frontmatter of .md files. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond the basic delete semantics by disclosing that a .bak backup is created before the file is written, which is valuable safety-relevant context. It does not, however, describe error behavior for missing IDs or whether the backup guarantees restoration.
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 short sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the backup side effect is presented immediately after, making the most important behavioral trait easy to notice.
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 two-parameter delete operation with fully described schema properties, the description covers the action and the key side effect. It could additionally mention behavior when the ID does not exist, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both id and file are already documented at the schema level. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the id parameter but adds no new detail beyond the 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?
The description states a specific action ('Remove') on a specific resource ('a bibliography entry') with an explicit key ('by ID'). This clearly separates the tool from siblings like bib:list, bib:search, and bib:update without relying on the tool name alone.
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 intended use is implied: call this when a specific bibliography entry ID needs to be removed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like bib:update, or mention that the ID should first be discovered via bib:list or bib:search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.