Remove one paper's text from the football-docs library by ID, leaving your local file and Zotero entry unchanged.
Remove one paper's text from the user's football-docs library. The user's own file and Zotero are not touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A DOI, arXiv ID, OpenAlex ID, zotero:KEY from search_papers, or local:… from add_local_paper. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful bounds: only the library text copy is removed, while the user's own file and Zotero are untouched. That materially narrows the blast radius beyond what annotations convey, though it omits what happens on an unknown or already-removed ID.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope boundary front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown — what is and isn't deleted — and annotations cover reversibility and safety. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and whether confirmation is required.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema itself enumerates the accepted ID forms (DOI, arXiv, OpenAlex, zotero:KEY, local:…). The description adds no further semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Remove one paper's text') plus the target collection ('football-docs library'), and immediately scopes what is *not* affected. It distinguishes itself from source-preserving siblings, though it doesn't name a counterpart tool by name.
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 only implied: remove a paper's indexed text when you no longer want it in the library. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., re-indexing, add_local_paper, search_docs), and no stated preconditions or confirmation requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.