remove_seed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only supplies the bare fact that this deletes. It omits whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens on an unknown ID, what occurs if both or neither identifier is supplied, and whether any authorization is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and both identifier forms with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a destructive tool with no annotations and two nominally optional parameters, the description should at minimum resolve which identifier to pass and note irreversibility; that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does clarify that seed_id is the local identifier while s2_id is a Semantic Scholar identifier. However, it leaves the mutual-exclusivity/optionality contract and precedence when both are provided entirely unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (seed) and identifies the two accepted identifier types, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as add_seed, resolve_seed, or set_seed_enabled, so an agent gets no help distinguishing this from the rest of the seed family.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives. Crucially, the description never says that exactly one of the two identifiers is needed, even though the schema marks both as optional with null defaults.

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