remove_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says almost nothing beyond the operation name. It does not disclose whether removal is reversible via undo, what happens to mates/constraints attached to the component, whether ground/fixed components error out, or whether dependent assembly references break.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits error conditions, side effects on constraints/mates, and any confirmation of what is returned or left behind after removal.

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% for two required string parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only indirectly hints at the two anchors ('assembly', 'instance'); neither assembly_id nor instance_id is explained, and no format, ID source, or lookup guidance is given.

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 ('a component instance from an assembly'), which is unambiguous and easily distinguished from destructive siblings like delete_entity or remove_raster_layer. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the complementary add_component sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g. whether the instance must exist or the assembly must be loaded), and no mention of alternatives such as deleting its parent assembly or ungrouping it first. The agent is left to infer all usage context.

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