remove_bt_task_child

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful mutation detail beyond annotations: it drops the matching entry from the parent's Children array, only touches task edges, and defines idempotent return semantics via removed:false / already_absent:true.

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?

The description is front-loaded, compact, and structured. The mutation behavior, inverse relationship, edge-type restriction, idempotency, and return shape are all delivered without 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, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical return shape and idempotency semantics. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 child_name, index, parent_name, and behavior_tree_path are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 leaf task node ... from a BehaviorTree composite.' It distinguishes itself from add_bt_task_child as the inverse and clarifies that only task child-edges are affected, so it is not confused with composite-child removal.

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 the inverse sibling add_bt_task_child and explains the key usage boundary: only task child-edges are considered, so a composite with the same name is untouched. This implies composite removal should use a different tool, but it does not explicitly name remove_bt_composite_child.

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