remove_anim_slot_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the idempotency note is partly redundant. However, the description adds value beyond annotations by stating the missing-group guard and by enumerating the return shape (removed vs already_absent, saved), which tells the agent how to detect the two outcomes.

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?

Two compact lines: the action is front-loaded, followed by the return contract. No wasted words, and the behavioral qualifier is parenthetically parked where it doesn't interrupt the core statement.

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, but the description supplies the return shape inline, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is whether the change is auto-saved to disk (the 'saved' field hints at it) and any permission prerequisites, but for a two-param mutation tool this is close to complete.

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 (skeleton_path, group_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Remove an animation slot group from a skeleton'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling mutators like add_anim_slot_group or remove_anim_composite without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'idempotent; guarded against missing group' implies this is safe to call repeatedly on a possibly-absent group, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related tasks (e.g. add_anim_slot_group to restore). Usage is only implied.

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