remove_eqs_test

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: later tests shift down one index, changes are dirty-but-unsaved (requiring save_asset), and out-of-range option/test indices hard-fail instead of silently doing nothing. These are the exact details an agent needs before a destructive edit.

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 index-shift consequence, then the persistence and error caveats, then the return shape. No wasted sentences, and the return-value line earns its place because 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, non-idempotent edit on a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers indexing semantics, persistence duty (save_asset), error behavior, and the exact return payload. 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 the schema already documents all three parameters; the description only adds that option_index selects 'one option' and that later tests re-index. That is a modest semantic addition, 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 states a precise verb+resource (remove the test at test_index from one option of a UEnvQuery asset) and pins down scope (a single option, one test). An agent can distinguish this from remove_eqs_option / add_eqs_test 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?

It gives clear usage context: it marks the asset dirty without saving and explicitly routes the agent to save_asset to persist, and it warns that out-of-range indices are errors rather than no-ops. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling operations like remove_eqs_option, so no true when-not/alternatives statement.

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