remove_hyperlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that shape-level and run-level links are both removed, orphaned link rels are dropped, media playback affordances are untouched, and saves are atomic with two-slot backup behavior.

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 packs a great deal of essential behavior into a compact, front-loaded paragraph. Every clause earns its place: target syntax, scope of removal, orphan handling, media exclusion, and save behavior. There is no filler.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the difficult concepts: target disambiguation, effect on runs, orphan rels, media, and atomic save behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details. It falls short only by not defining the conventional params file_path and slide and not mentioning error cases such as a missing shape.

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 must explain parameters in prose. It provides rich semantics for target—shape id vs. object with shape_id, paragraph, start, and end—and explains backup=False behavior. file_path and slide are not explained, but their roles are conventional and low-risk.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Remove hyperlinks from a shape or text range,' which clearly sets this apart from siblings like set_hyperlink and list_hyperlinks. It also defines the two target forms—whole shape versus specific run range—leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

It identifies when to apply shape-level versus run-level removal and explains the optional coverage fields. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for straightforward hyperlink-removal tasks.

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