remove_gameplay_effect_modifier

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the return object (removed bool, modifier_count, removed_index), which no output schema provides, and by clarifying the target is the CDO's array element.

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 single sentence stating the action and target, followed by a compact Returns line. No filler; every clause contributes either purpose or return shape.

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?

With no output schema the Returns line is essential and present, and the 100%-covered schema carries parameter detail. Minor gaps remain (whether removal shifts later indices, whether the blueprint must be recompiled/saved), but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 explains modifier_index (0-based, add appends), ge_blueprint_path, and the blueprint_name alias. The description only echoes 'by index', adding essentially nothing beyond structured data, so the baseline 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 precise verb (Remove) and resource (a modifier in a GameplayEffect CDO's Modifiers array) with the exact location (by index). The parenthetical '(the D in add/set CRUD)' frames it against the add/set modifier family, so an agent can place it in the sibling landscape without opening other 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?

Usage is only implied: the CRUD framing and 'by index' hint that this is the removal counterpart to add_gameplay_effect_modifier, but no sibling is named and no when-to-use/when-not condition or prerequisite is stated. Adequate but thin.

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