airstrings_strings_rm

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the local-vs-remote split, the protected-environment refusal, irreversibility, the return payload ('what was removed and whether it was pushed'), and the deferred effect on running apps until airstrings_publish. The annotations declare destructive/idempotent, and the description fills in the consequences and guardrails.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the push behavior, irreversibility warning, and return value. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return value, the mutation's reversibility, the local/remote distinction, and the downstream publish dependency. An agent has everything needed to call this safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the push flag's environment-level effect and its protected-env restriction, and that omitting locale removes the whole key. It does not restate syntax the schema already provides.

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 precise verb and resource with scope: 'Remove a string key, or one locale of it, from the local workspace CSV.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from airstrings_strings_set by contrasting removal with re-setting, and from airstrings_push by describing the push=true flag.

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 clear conditions: local-only by default, push=true also deletes in the active environment, refused on a protected environment, and deletion can only be undone by setting the string again. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (airstrings_strings_set) to use for restoration or airstrings_publish for propagation.

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