remove_bt_service

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=true, but the description goes further by spelling out concretely what idempotency means (a missing service returns removed:false / already_absent:true) and identifying the internal array mutated (UBTCompositeNode::Services). This adds operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, inverse relation, and idempotency behavior, followed by an explicit Returns block. Every element carries information and nothing is padded.

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 4-param destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the inverse relationship, idempotency semantics, and an explicit return shape, while annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters are already fully documented, and the mutual exclusivity of service_name vs index is stated in the schema itself. The description references parent_name/service_name but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource (remove a service/background tick from a BehaviorTree composite) and explicitly names the inverse operation add_bt_service. The resource distinction (service vs decorator/task children in sibling remove_bt_* tools) is clear enough to select correctly.

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?

Names add_bt_service as its inverse, which implies the usage context (undo an added service), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any routing to the sibling remove_bt_decorator / remove_bt_task_child tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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