cases-remove_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'removes a documentation entry' without elaborating on side effects (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on related data, idempotency, or error behavior). A deletion tool should clarify whether the operation is reversible or has cascading effects. This omission limits 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 sentence of 10 words, conveying the essential action without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's nature (deletion), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon success (e.g., return value) or failure (e.g., case not found). For a simple delete operation, additional context like confirmation or idempotency would make the tool more usable. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the response and error handling.

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 schema already documents both parameters clearly: case_id as 'Case ID (@rid format)' and doc_id as 'Documentation entry ID to remove'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no improvement is made.

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 (removes), the resource (documentation entry from a case), and the method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cases-add_documentation and cases-list_documentation, and from items-remove_documentation which operates on items, not cases. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for removing documentation by ID, while cases-remove_tag is for tags, or that items-remove_documentation exists for items. The lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to decide correctly.

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