Remove doc source

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 by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that — it does not say whether previously ingested documents from the source are deleted, cached data invalidated, or how failures are reported.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the verb+resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the qualifications a destructive operation warrants.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the annotations already convey that this is a destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation. The main unanswered question for an agent — whether removal also purges indexed content derived from that source — is left open, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool but not fatal.

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 single 'name' parameter is documented as 'Source name to remove', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no extra information (e.g. whether an ID or display name is expected), which matches the baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a registered source'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings such as add_doc_source or refresh_doc_source beyond the obvious verb contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this versus add_doc_source, refresh_doc_source, or list_doc_sources, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. confirming the source is registered). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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