remove_component_from_actor

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnly annotations, it discloses what is actually destroyed (one component, instance-level), that the Blueprint class is untouched, and the persistence side effect (dirties the actor's package, requiring save_level). This is exactly the behavioral context 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 verb and resource, then alternatives and constraints. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash-heavy single block is slightly harder to scan than a split would be.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description still supplies the return shape and covers safety, alternates, prerequisites, and persistence. 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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only that component_name must come from get_actor_components, which is marginal beyond the schema. 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 precise verb pair ('Detach and destroy') plus the exact resource and scope ('one component from an actor PLACED in the level, by component name'). It explicitly frames itself as the inverse of add_component_to_actor, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: use remove_component_from_blueprint for class-level edits, and call get_actor_components first to discover component_name. It also states the environmental constraint ('Editor world only') and the follow-up action ('save_level to keep it').

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