remove_ism_instance

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=false). The description supplies behavioral context annotations cannot: that indices shift after removal, that removal order matters, and that removed:true is not a reliable proof of the final count so num_instances must be re-read. These are non-obvious operational traits that materially affect correct use.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the ordering caveat, then the verification caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return contract ({ removed: bool, num_instances: int }) plus the caveat that removed alone is insufficient. Combined with the ordering guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke and verify the operation 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 actor_name, component_name and instance_index are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the operation is index-based but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: delete exactly one instance from an InstancedStaticMeshComponent, addressed by index. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling clear_ism_instances, so an agent can pick it apart from both the bulk-clear and info tools without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (single removal by index), when-not (use clear_ism_instances to empty the component), the ordering rule for multi-deletes (highest index down because indices shift), and the verification alternative (get_ism_instance_info). Nothing about routing or sequencing is left to inference.

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