docs_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is destructive and it cascades to 'all its pages', plus a confirmation gate. It omits whether deletion is permanent/irreversible and whether elevated permissions are needed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the confirmation caveat. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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, two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, cascade effect, and the confirmation requirement. Gaps remain around reversibility and authorization, which an agent would need before committing to a delete.

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 100% (confirm and sourceId are both documented, including a pointer to docs_list), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires confirmation' adds only a faint echo of the confirm parameter and no new syntax or format detail.

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 documentation source) plus its blast radius ('and all its pages'), which clearly separates it from docs_update or the docs_add_* family. It stops short of naming a sibling as an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Requires confirmation' implies the preconditions for invoking the tool, and the intent to delete a source is self-evident. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus docs_update, no warning about when deletion is inappropriate, and no statement of the required permission level.

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