remove_blendspace_sample

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say destructive/non-idempotent) by disclosing the swap-removal mechanic — the last sample lands in the deleted index — and the failure contract (saved=false, save_error populated on a failed save). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior that prevents incorrect callers.

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 action, then the critical warning, then the return shape — a sensible ordering. The warning is somewhat long but each clause adds actionable content; the 'Returns:' enumeration is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return object fields, and for a destructive, reordering mutation it also explains the post-op index state and save-failure path. Nothing an agent needs to call and recover from this tool is missing.

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% and both parameters (index, blendspace_path) are already documented there. The description's 'by index' reinforces but adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb (Remove) plus resource (a blend sample) and scope qualifier (by index, from a BlendSpace) in the first clause. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_blendspace_sample, edit_blendspace_sample, get_blendspace_samples, and remove_blend_space without opening any 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?

Provides real operational guidance for repeated calls: 'Never remove a batch by descending index' and re-sync using the returned sample list before the next call. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5, but the sequencing context is concrete.

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