Remove sound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('remove') but does not mention that this is a destructive operation, what happens if the target or sound does not exist, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects on the project. Critical behavioral information is missing.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it is concise, it omits necessary details, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'target' refers to, how names are matched, error handling, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity of the surrounding toolset (many sibling tools), more elaboration is needed for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter metadata. It only clarifies that 'name' refers to the sound's name, but 'target' is left ambiguous—it could be a sprite, stage, or something else. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameters without additional context.

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 action (remove), the resource (a sound), and the scope (from a target by name). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like remove_costume or add_sound, and no tautology is present.

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?

No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations where this tool is preferable, or when to avoid it (e.g., if the sound is not present). The description is purely declarative with no context.

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