remove_bus_from_mix

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantial context beyond that: persistence-to-disk as the success condition, the idempotent-style already-absent path (removed false, already_absent true, nothing saved), and the exact result fields. That is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 its success condition, then the edge case, then results. The trailing "Returns: { ... }" sentence restates the field list already given in the prior sentence, which is mild redundancy, but the rest of the text earns its place.

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 must carry return semantics, and it does (mix_path, bus_path, removed, already_absent, stage_count, saved). Combined with the disk-persistence success criterion and the absent-bus edge case, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the mapping (bus_path = the bus, mix_path = the mix) via the opening sentence and the returns list, adding no format or path-syntax detail.

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 (removes), a precisely scoped resource (every stage using a USoundControlBus within a USoundControlBusMix asset), and the persistence action (saves the mix). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_bus_to_mix 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?

Explains the operative condition (removal succeeds only when the mix reaches disk) and the already-absent case, which tells the agent when the call is a no-op. It never explicitly names the inverse sibling add_bus_to_mix as the alternative, so it falls just short of full when/when-not routing guidance.

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