remove_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states only that it removes an alias, but doesn't reveal whether it's destructive/irreversible, whether removing fails silently for non-existent aliases, whether errors surface, or whether it triggers cascade effects elsewhere in the system. For a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Single concise sentence with zero waste. It's efficient and front-loaded. However, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; the terseness is partly a symptom of lack of behavioral detail rather than purposeful compression.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-value documentation isn't required. However, this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a minimal one-sentence description. Given the complexity of distinguishing behavior around aliases (validation, error handling, idempotency) and the sibling add_alias/remove_alias pair, the description should do more to explain the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. Neither 'ref' (presumably an entity reference) nor 'alias' (the alias string to remove) is explained in the description. The names are reasonably self-explanatory, but given zero parameter coverage in the schema descriptions, the tool text adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 states 'Remove an alias from an entity' with a clear verb-action (remove) and resource (alias on an entity). It pairs well with the sibling add_alias tool, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate, the inverse operation is obvious. Purpose is clear though minimal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., must the alias exist? must the entity exist?), nor does it mention any relationship to add_alias, resolve_ref, or other alias-related tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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