remove_gameplay_effect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it removes only the FIRST matching effect, removes all stacks, and defines the failure signal ('success is false with an error otherwise') plus post-condition confirmation ('the effect no longer being active afterwards'). That is real behavioral disclosure.

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 and reasonably short, but it duplicates itself: the first sentence already says 'removed is the engine answer confirmed by the effect no longer being active', and the Returns line repeats 'removed is what the engine reports, confirmed by the effect not being active afterwards'. One of the two statements is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does define the { actor_name, effect_name, removed } shape and the meaning of removed. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two inputs and annotations covering the mutation profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the multi-effect-match edge case is left implicit.

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 fully documented (matching semantics, case-insensitivity, asset/class paths, first-match-wins). The description's 'whose definition matches effect_name' largely restates the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Remove the first active gameplay effect ... whose definition matches effect_name, with all its stacks') and clarifies the scope: only the first matching effect, all stacks. This distinguishes it implicitly from remove_gameplay_effect_component and remove_gameplay_effect_modifier, which target components/modifiers rather than active instances. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the schema mentions 'the effect_name from get_active_effects', which suggests the natural read-then-remove workflow, but the description itself gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. There is no warning about what to do if multiple effects share a definition, beyond the implicit 'first match wins'.

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