remove_bt_decorator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete value beyond the hints: the exact idempotency outcome (removed:false / already_absent:true), the underlying operation (drops from FBTCompositeChild::Decorators), and the saved/save_error return fields implying an asset save step.

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 and scope, followed by the inverse relationship, idempotency note, and a return-shape block. The Returns enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though it is somewhat dense; overall efficient with little waste.

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 spelling out the return object's fields, and it covers the idempotency and save behavior. For a mutation tool it is nearly complete, though it could say more about save failure conditions or required permissions.

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 all five parameters including index vs decorator_name and parent_name defaults. The description adds no syntax 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) and resource (a decorator / execution condition) with precise scope: a specific child-edge of a BehaviorTree composite. It explicitly names the sibling add_bt_decorator as its inverse, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

It gives clear context by framing itself as the inverse of add_bt_decorator and noting the idempotent case, which helps an agent choose it. It stops short of explicit when/when-not exclusions or routing to alternative removal tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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