shelf_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key constraint (built-ins cannot be removed) and gives the return format. However, it doesn't mention error handling, reversibility, or what 'note' contains. It adds some value but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a structured Args/Returns block. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the constraint, and the return shape. However, it omits potential error conditions, idempotency, and the meaning of 'note', leaving some gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'name: shelf name', which is redundant with the parameter title and gives no additional details about valid values, format, or case sensitivity. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Remove a user-added source from the shelf' with the specific verb 'remove' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like shelf_add by explicitly scoping to removal of user-added sources (excluding built-ins).

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?

It provides a clear exclusion ('built-ins cannot be removed') that tells the agent when not to use it. It doesn't name explicit alternatives, but the sibling context (shelf_add, shelf_suggest) makes the usage implied. This is clear context without explicit exclusions remaining.

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