remove_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state that the plan is deleted along with nested and drawn objects, and that without force it refuses if there is something to delete. However, it omits other important aspects such as reversibility, any side effects on related data, or permissions required. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but the disclosure is incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and directly integrates the critical force behavior, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive delete operation with 3 parameters, the description is not fully complete. It covers the deletion scope and force logic but leaves parameter semantics (handle, plan_uid) unexplained and does not mention any prerequisites or expected output beyond what an output schema would provide. Given the presence of an output schema, return format is covered externally, but the missing parameter clarity reduces completeness.

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 compensate. It provides meaning for the 'force' parameter by explaining the refusal behavior when force is false. However, it does not clarify what 'handle' or 'plan_uid' represent or how they are used. Since two of three parameters remain undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the schema 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 description states a clear action ('Удалить план' - delete plan) and resource, with specific scope (including nested and drawn objects). It is distinct from sibling operations like add_plan, set_plan, and get_plan, clearly indicating a destructive plan-level 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device handle) or situations where other tools (like remove_object) might be more appropriate. The only context provided is the force behavior, which is behavioral rather than usage direction.

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