caption_span_rm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not burdened with establishing basic safety. The description adds little beyond restating the destructive action in prose, and it does not note side effects such as irreversibility or impacts on related spans. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the target, and the position source. It is an exemplary concise definition.

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 destructive removal tool with one required parameter, the description is complete: it names the resource, the parameter, and the source of valid positions. Annotations cover the destructive/read-only safety profile, and the output schema plus fully documented parameters cover call details. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description's mention of position reuses the same semantics already present in the schema ('by its position in caption_span_ls') and adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action (remove) and resource (caption span), and anchors the position parameter to caption_span_ls, making its purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling caption_span_add and caption_span_ls tools without needing to open their schemas.

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?

The phrase 'as caption_span_ls numbers it' implies the correct workflow: obtain the position from a listing first. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over an alternative, nor does it mention the available plan-based dry-run as a safer path despite destructive annotations. Usage guidance is implied rather than fully articulated.

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