remove_build_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Uses UI scripting,' which hints at potential side effects or automation behavior, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive (removing animation permanently), requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational impact.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, the second sentence ('Uses UI scripting.') could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add minimal usage context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., success confirmation, error cases), whether animations can be restored, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'add_build_in'. For a tool that modifies presentation state, more behavioral and contextual detail is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (slide_number, element_type, element_index) with descriptions and an enum for element_type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'Build In animation' means contextually or how element indexing works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Build In animation') and target ('from an element'), and specifies the implementation method ('Uses UI scripting'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_element' or 'clear_slide' by focusing specifically on animation removal rather than element deletion or slide clearing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_build_in' or other animation-related tools beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing presentation with animations), when-not scenarios (e.g., if the element has no animation), or direct alternatives among siblings (like whether 'edit_text_item' might handle animation properties). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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