remove_assessment_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a removal, implying a destructive action, but does not mention permanence, effects on related data, error behavior (e.g., if the case is not attached), or any side effects. An agent cannot anticipate the operational consequences from this description alone.

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 is one short sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and object.

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 tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), so a brief description might suffice. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at least confirm the roles of 'slug' and 'assessment_case_id'. It does not fully clarify the input semantics, leaving room for misinvocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only says 'a single attached case' without clarifying that 'slug' is the assessment identifier and 'assessment_case_id' is the case identifier. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value and leaves ambiguity about which parameter refers to what.

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 clear verb ('remove') and a specific resource ('a single attached case from an assessment'), which distinguishes it from attach and replace siblings. It could be more explicit about the exact relationship, but it is clear enough for an agent to recognize the primary action.

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 implies the use case (removing one attached case) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like replace_assessment_cases or attach_assessment_cases. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is or isn't appropriate.

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