experience_remove_achievement

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is irreversible ('no undo'), it is scoped so it 'takes nothing else with it', and there is a confirmation protocol before execution. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action in the first clause, then layers on irreversibility, confirmation, and duplicate resolution in a logical order. Four short sentences with no filler, though the duplicate example is slightly more anecdotal than the rest.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers irreversibility, scope, and the pre-call confirmation step. Minor gaps remain: no statement of what the response looks like or whether the id is validated before deletion.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented in the schema, including its provenance from experience_list and its equivalence to cv_edit's evidence_id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but is baseline rather than value-adding.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one achievement from the bank', with the 'one' making single-item scope explicit. The resource name distinguishes it in practice from experience_remove_employment, but the description never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is left to the reader comparing names.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (confirm with the candidate, read it back, act only on a clear yes) and a concrete use case (resolving duplicates by keeping the richer entry). It does not cover the obvious alternative of correcting an entry via experience_update_achievement rather than deleting it, so the when-not is only partially addressed.

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