remove_additional_party

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial context: the party is not deleted, the operation is reversible, and idempotent with detailed response differences for fresh vs. already-removed links. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently packs all essential details (reversibility, idempotency, response format) without redundancy.

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 description covers the core behavior (removal, confirmation, reversibility, idempotency) and response shapes. While there is no output schema, the response is described. It could provide more detail on error scenarios or entity type enumeration, but the schema handles the latter.

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 low (50%), so the description should compensate. It elaborates on confirm (must be true) but does not explain entityId and partyId beyond the schema's type constraints. The description adds some value through response format hints but is not fully compensatory for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Remove an additional-party link between an opportunity/project and a party,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool add_additional_party and other remove tools by specifying the link removal and noting that the party itself is not deleted.

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 when-to-use context: requires confirm=true, is reversible via add_additional_party, and is idempotent. It explains the response behavior on retry. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond the add tool, so it is slightly lacking in exclusion guidance.

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