remove_anim_composite_segment

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 behavioral context beyond them: that length is recomputed after removal, and that a failed save yields success=false with saved=false plus a save_error field. That save-failure contract is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutation, followed by the side effect and the save-failure contract, then a return-shape line. No wasted words; the returns line is justified because no output schema exists, though it is a slight expansion beyond pure description.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, the length recomputation, save-failure semantics, and the full return shape. Almost complete, with the only gap being the absence of any when-to-use / sibling routing guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (composite_path object path, zero-based index) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the index semantics via num_segments but adds no new syntax or constraints, 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 precise verb (Remove) on a specific resource (an FAnimSegment by index from a UAnimComposite's AnimationTrack) and adds the side effect (recompute length). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_anim_composite, remove_anim_bone_track, and remove_montage_slot.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite siblings such as remove_anim_composite existing. Usage is only inferable from the tool name/purpose, which is the level the MID calibration scored a 2.

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