remove_input_modifier

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds traits the annotations cannot: the call only succeeds when the context reaches disk, indices shift after removal, and the returned saved/save_error fields signal persistence outcome. These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the structured hints.

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?

The purpose, addressing scheme, caveat, inverse reference, and return shape are front-loaded and packed into a few tight clauses, with the ordering warning placed where it matters most. No sentence is redundant given the absent 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence semantics, ordering hazard, inverse operation, and an inline Returns shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the indices are positional, that removal shifts subsequent indices, and by tying mapping_index/modifier_index to the nested Mapping.Modifiers structure. That compensates slightly above baseline.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource -- deleting one modifier from a key mapping in an Enhanced Input mapping context -- and specifies the addressing scheme (mapping_index + modifier_index). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling add_input_modifier by naming it as the inverse, so an agent can select correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use example ('removing a Negate that flipped an axis the wrong way'), names the inverse operation, and supplies an ordering rule ('work from the highest down') that materially affects correct invocation. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a full alternative enumeration, so 4 rather than 5.

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