remove-magazine-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('削除する' - remove/delete) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., comments or likes), error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese ('マガジンから記事を削除する') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a deletion operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, behavioral traits, and output information, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It mentions 'magazine' and 'article' but doesn't clarify what 'magazineId' and 'noteId' represent (e.g., IDs, names, or how to obtain them), their formats, or constraints. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 'マガジンから記事を削除する' (Remove article from magazine) clearly states the verb ('削除する' - remove/delete) and resource ('記事' - article) with context ('マガジンから' - from magazine). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-magazine-note' (add) and 'get-magazine' (retrieve), but doesn't specify what type of article or deletion occurs (e.g., permanent vs. soft).

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 is provided. The description implies deletion from a magazine, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing magazineId and noteId), exclusions (e.g., not for removing comments or likes), or comparisons to siblings like 'unlike-note' or 'post-draft-note' for other modifications.

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