remove_party_website_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity, reversibility, no confirm gate, idempotency, and response format for both fresh and repeated removal, but omits potential permission requirements or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by behavioral details and response format. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter acquisition, behavior, and response details. It lacks explicit error cases or prerequisites but is adequate for typical use.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that websiteId is obtained from get_party and is the row id within a party. The schema only describes websiteId, so the description compensates for the 50% coverage by clarifying both parameters' roles.

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 the action 'Remove one website entry from a party by its row id', specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_party_website by mentioning re-add capability.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (after discovering the id via get_party) and mentions an alternative (re-add with add_party_website). It also notes the lack of a confirm gate and idempotency, guiding proper usage.

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