remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that source files are never deleted and spells out the destructive scope of folder removal ('everything indexed beneath it') and glob matching. It omits permissions, idempotency, and what happens on non-matching patterns, but the safety profile of a 'remove' tool is disclosed.

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 tight sentences plus a clarifying clause; the primary action is front-loaded and the safety caveat follows immediately. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter's meaning is covered. Remaining gaps are minor: no auth/permission requirements and no note on behavior when a pattern matches nothing.

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% and the schema only declares an array of strings, so the description must compensate. It does, by explaining that entries may be source names, folder paths, or glob patterns and defining glob syntax (*/?/[]). It does not explain how multiple entries combine or path resolution rules.

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 names a specific verb (remove) and resource (documents from the index) and pins down the three selection modes (source name, folder, glob), which separates it from broad-wipe siblings such as reset or wiki_wipe. It also clarifies the blast radius up front with 'Source files are never deleted'.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics of each selector (folder vs glob vs name), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_documents to inspect first, reset for a full wipe). An agent can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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