remove_field_node

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

Annotations already cover destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: RemoveAt frees the command's owned RootNode graph, the asset is saved, and out-of-range indices return removed:false with a note. This gives the agent rich operational context beyond structured metadata.

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-loads the core action, then explains inverse behavior, side effects, idempotency, and return shape in a structured way. It is somewhat detailed, but the added detail earns its place because 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and error/save behavior. Combined with annotations and complete parameter schema coverage, it provides everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is strong on its own. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that index targets UFieldSystem.Commands and that an out-of-range index is an accepted no-op.

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 and resource: removes a field command node from a UFieldSystem by index and persists. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the inverse of add_field_node, so an agent can route between add/remove operations without confusion.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: removing a field command node by index from UFieldSystem.Commands. It also explains safe re-running via idempotent out-of-range behavior, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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