remove_additional_party

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial details: confirmation required, reversibility, and idempotent retry behavior with response structure. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, including confirmation requirement, reversibility, and idempotency details.

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?

No output schema, but description provides response shapes. Covers idempotency and error handling (Capsule 404 to converted response). Could mention missing entity/party errors, but overall sufficient for a mutating tool.

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 coverage is 50% (entity and confirm described, partyId/entityId not). The description does not explicitly define partyId/entityId but provides context through the tool action. Baseline score for partial 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 specifies the verb 'Remove', the resource 'additional-party link', and the scope 'between an opportunity/project and a party'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning reversibility via add_additional_party.

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?

It states 'Requires confirm=true' and notes idempotency, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to other removal tools. The context implies use for removing a party link without deleting the party.

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