remove_bt_composite_child

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not the only source of the safety profile. It nonetheless adds real value beyond them: the exact idempotent return (removed:false / already_absent:true), the composite-edge scoping constraint, and the saved/save_error flags on the response. It does not detail permissions or reversibility, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

Four dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then the inverse relationship, the scoping rule, and the return contract. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly inlines the full return shape (including optional save_error), and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Together they give an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 the schema already documents index, child_name, parent_name, and behavior_tree_path fully. The description reinforces the parent/Children-array relationship but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Remove a child composite ... from a BehaviorTree composite') and disambiguates from siblings by naming its inverse (add_bt_composite_child) and by clarifying that only composite edges are touched, so a same-named task is untouched. An agent can separate it from remove_bt_task_child 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?

Nails the when-to-use case by positioning it as the inverse of add_bt_composite_child and explicitly carving out the common confusion ('a task with the same name is untouched'). It also states the idempotent case, so the agent knows a second call is harmless.

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