remove_collection_param

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape, notably the boolean removed and saved flags plus scalar/vector counts, which signal failure tolerance and that the asset is persisted. It does not discuss whether the change is undoable or how missing parameters are handled.

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 a single purpose sentence, followed by a compact Returns block, and nothing is wasted. Structure is clean; the Returns enumeration is slightly dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the inline Returns block usefully covers the return values an agent would otherwise guess at. Combined with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the definition is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior (missing parameter, undoability) is absent.

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 all three parameters (param_name, param_type, collection_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting 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?

"Remove a parameter from a Material Parameter Collection by name" states a specific verb (remove), resource (parameter in an MPC), and scoping qualifier (by name). This clearly separates it from siblings like clear_collection_params (removes all) or rename_collection_param, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions — it never says what happens if the parameter does not exist or that this is the sibling to add_collection_scalar_param/add_collection_vector_param. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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