remove_foliage_in_radius

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it scopes destruction to one FoliageType inside a world-space sphere, notes it avoids wiping the whole type, and provides a verification oracle (instances_removed plus re-count). It stops short of stating undo/irreversibility details, so not a 5.

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 action and scope, then routes to the sibling alternative and preview tool, and finally lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 5 well-documented parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape and a verification strategy. It covers selection rationale, workflow guidance, and result expectations sufficiently for an agent to call it correctly.

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 radius unit, center coordinates, and the FoliageType asset path. The description reinforces 'world-space sphere' and 'one FoliageType' but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (delete/clear) and resource (foliage instances of one FoliageType) with clear scope (inside a world-space sphere). It explicitly distinguishes itself from remove_all_foliage_for_type and get_foliage_in_radius, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (remove_all_foliage_for_type) and the condition that selects it ('remove it everywhere instead'). It also prescribes a preview workflow with get_foliage_in_radius and a verification method, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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