remove_gameplay_effect_component

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 that: it edits a CDO asset, returns a saved flag indicating persistence, and reports removed_index/removed_class/component_count. It doesn't state permission requirements or reversibility explicitly, keeping it from 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-loaded with the core action and selection mechanism in one sentence, followed by a compact return-shape line. No filler, though the return-shape dump is somewhat dense.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return fields (removed, saved, component_count, etc.), and annotations cover the destructive/write profile. Selection semantics and the inverse-relationship are covered, leaving only minor gaps like permission prerequisites.

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 four parameters including the OR relationship between component_index and component_type. The description restates the index-vs-type selection without adding format or precedence details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (remove) and resource (a component from a GameplayEffect CDO's GEComponents array), and names the selection mechanism (by index or by component_type/component_class). It also identifies itself as the inverse of add_gameplay_effect_component, making it distinguishable from that sibling.

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?

Clear context is provided: it operates on the GEComponents array and is the inverse of add_gameplay_effect_component. However, it does not state when to prefer this over the many set_gameplay_effect_component_* siblings (e.g., when to remove-then-add vs. modify in place), so full when/when-not guidance is absent.

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