remove_blend_profile

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it clarifies that the entire profile is removed (not one bone entry) and enumerates the return payload (already_absent, profile_count, saved) which is the only disclosure of results since there is no output schema. It does repeat idempotency from the annotations rather than expanding on it.

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 sentences followed by a single Returns line. The purpose and scope constraint are front-loaded, and the returns enumeration is dense with useful fields rather than filler.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle context, idempotency, and the exact return fields, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits any note on persistence semantics of the 'saved' flag or permission prerequisites, a minor remaining gap.

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% with only two well-documented parameters (profile_name, skeleton_path), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution guidance beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a WHOLE UBlendProfile from a skeleton') with scope qualification ('WHOLE') that separates it from the per-bone sibling set_blend_profile_bone. An agent can distinguish it from the many other remove_* siblings at a glance.

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?

Explains the lifecycle relationship to set_blend_profile_bone (which implicitly creates profiles) and notes there is no separate create tool to undo, giving clear context for when this tool is the right one. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' rule, but the inverse framing is enough to route correctly.

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