remove_my_writing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for the additional non-obvious behavior: deletion happens on the local disk folder and the analysis is re-run excluding the removed writing — a cascade side effect an agent could not read off the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and location, followed by the re-analysis consequence. No filler or repetition.

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 and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description only needs the disk-location scope and the re-analysis side effect — both present. The missing piece is failure/prerequisite handling, but the essentials are covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the writing_id description even points at list_my_writings for discovery, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about writing_id or style, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb+resource (deletes one writing) and scopes it to a concrete location (the 내글모아 folder on the user's computer), which separates it from read/write siblings like add_my_writing and read_my_writing. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, but the action is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite (e.g. that the writing_id must already exist, or what happens if it doesn't), and no alternatives mentioned among the many siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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