remove_placement

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the action 'сняв связь с обеих сторон' (unlinking both sides), which indicates the tool does not delete the object but removes its link to the plan. However, it omits critical details such as whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects other plans or objects, or if there are any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the action and includes the key nuance about unlinking both sides. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded, making it easy to parse. While it might be slightly under-specified, the brevity is appropriate for the tool's simplicity and does not waste the agent's attention.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description lacks essential context such as parameter meanings, preconditions, and side effects. The operation's complexity is moderate (3 required params, mutation), but without annotations or schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional inference, making it incomplete for real-world use.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining each parameter. It only implies that 'item' is the object and 'plan_uid' is the plan, but says nothing about 'handle' – it could be the placement identifier or a unique link handle. Without explicit parameter explanations, the agent cannot confidently map arguments to their semantic roles, making this a weak area given the 0% coverage.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove an object from the plan, unlinking both sides.' This specifies a verb (remove) and resource (object from plan), and distinguishes it from siblings like remove_plan (removes entire plan) and remove_object (likely removes object from catalog). The phrase 'сняв связь с обеих сторон' adds important scope by clarifying the bidirectional relationship removal, making the purpose specific enough for an agent to differentiate from similar tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose implies this is the tool for removing a placement, there is no comparison with siblings like place_object or remove_object, leaving the agent to infer context. Without such clarity, it fails to guide selection in ambiguous cases.

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