remove_ability

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: an active ability is only marked (pending_removal=true) and leaves when it ends, while removed=true means the spec is gone, and failure returns success=false with an error. This is the kind of state-dependent outcome disclosure annotations cannot express. It omits any note on required edit permissions or whether the operation is undoable, keeping it below 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the closing "read back" clause restates verbatim the pending_removal/removed semantics already given in sentence two, which is pure duplication. It also references a "success" field that does not appear in the enumerated return object, adding noise and a minor internal inconsistency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return shape (actor_name, ability_name, removed, pending_removal) and does so. For a 2-parameter destructive mutation whose safety profile is covered by annotations, this is nearly complete, marred only by the stray "success" reference and the missing link to cancel_ability.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (actor_name resolution via find_actors_by_name, ability_name match forms). The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter meaning, and merely echoes the two names in its return listing, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Remove one granted ability from an editor-world actor ability system component") and pins the underlying mechanism (ClearAbility), so it is clearly distinguishable from adjacent remove_* siblings like remove_gameplay_effect. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from cancel_ability, which is the nearest semantically-overlapping sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied through the behavioral split between granted specs and active abilities, which tells the agent what state it must be in. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. cancel_ability for an active instance), so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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