remove_party_address_by_id

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining atomicity, reversibility, and idempotent behavior. It details response shapes for fresh vs. already-removed cases, which is beyond 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, usage, and behavior. No unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, idempotency, and response format. Lacks explicit info on error cases or prerequisites, but overall complete for a simple removal operation.

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%: partyId lacks description, but the description implies it's the party identifier. addressId gets a detailed description in both the schema and the description, explaining how to obtain it. The description compensates for the missing schema description on partyId by context.

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?

Clearly states the action 'remove one address entry from a party by its row id'. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that remove other types of sub-entities (e.g., email, phone).

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (to remove an address), how to discover the id (via get_party), and mentions lack of a confirm gate. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives but implies the only way to remove an address. Guidance is clear but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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