robot_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states removal is the inverse of filter, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to related axioms or structure.

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 with an example. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and uses inline code formatting for clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 21 parameters. Description fails to explain crucial parameters like 'axioms', 'signature', 'trim', 'preserve_structure', leaving behavioral gaps. Incomplete for a high-complexity tool.

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?

Out of 21 parameters, description only explains three (term, term_file, select). Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but does not explain the majority of parameters, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 clearly states the tool removes selected axioms from an ontology, using the verb 'remove' and resource 'axioms'. It explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of filter, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear guidance on specifying terms via 'term' or 'term_file' and controlling selection with 'select', including an example. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling guidance, but context is sufficient.

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