remove_landscape_spline_control_point

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the traits annotations cannot express: attached segments are destroyed (segments_removed quantifies it), the route is split rather than healed, and remaining indices shift. That is high-value behavioral disclosure 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?

Front-loads the action and consequence in one dense first sentence, then the remedy, the ordering tip, and the return shape. Every clause earns its place, though the run-on style makes it slightly heavy to parse compared to a tighter two-sentence split.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, remediation, safe ordering, and even enumerates the return fields. 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 two parameters are documented there; the description still adds meaning by explaining that the index is positional and that indices shift after deletion, which justifies the delete-high-to-low rule. Useful semantic addition over the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) plus an exact resource (a landscape spline control point by index) and immediately scopes the blast radius (every attached segment goes with it). An agent can distinguish it from remove_landscape_spline_segment and the add_* siblings 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 operational guidance: removing a mid-route point breaks the road/river rather than healing it, re-join neighbours with add_landscape_spline_segment, and delete from the highest index down when removing several. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-repair/ordering guidance an agent needs.

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