remove_curve_table_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context: the operation is non-row-deleting and is the inverse of add_curve_table_key, plus an explicit return-shape listing including row_existed/key_existed/removed/saved flags that tell the agent what success actually means.

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 opening sentence front-loads the action, scope and inverse relationship with zero filler. The trailing Returns block is somewhat long but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and clarifies the mutation boundary (key-level, not row-level). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has nearly everything needed; only a compare-to-sibling routing hint 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%, and the schema itself explains the key_index vs time mutual exclusivity. The description only restates 'by index or time', adding no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Remove a single key from an existing UCurveTable row's rich curve') and explicitly scopes it as not deleting the row, which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_curve_table_row and remove_curve_table_row. It even names the inverse tool (add_curve_table_key), so an agent can disambiguate without opening the 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?

It clarifies the operation stands apart from row deletion ('without deleting the row') and points to the inverse operation, giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming the sibling removal tools (e.g. remove_curve_key) as alternatives, so selection is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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