delete_place_alias

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

Beyond the annotations declaring this destructive, the description adds critical behavior: pre-validation against the snapshot to avoid a known coordinator KeyError, the resulting clean error, zero RPCs on typo, and the force override for ownership conflicts. This gives the agent a precise understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 opens with a direct one-sentence purpose, then adds a detailed rationale for pre-validation and the force condition. While the internal reference 'design §11.12 trap' is potentially noisy, every sentence adds actionable information, so it's efficient but slightly verbose.

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?

The description covers error handling, preconditions, and ownership rules, while the output schema presumably documents the success response. It does not explicitly address reversibility or broader side effects, but destructiveHint and the removal semantics suffice given the annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the alias removal operation and explaining force as a bypass for ownership restrictions. However, the 'place' parameter is only implied by context ('existing place') and no format or validation details are given, leaving some gap.

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 opening sentence 'Remove an alias from an existing place' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling add_place_alias. Even without reading the rest, the tool's function 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?

The description provides clear contextual conditions: it pre-validates the alias before RPC and requires force=True when the place is acquired by a different identity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with add_place_alias or other sibling tools, so it lacks an explicit alternative recommendation, though the opposite operation is obvious.

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