remove_landscape_spline_segment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains that the two endpoint control points are unlinked but retained, that segment indices shift after a removal, and it enumerates the returned fields. This is exactly the behavioral context (what survives, what changes, ordering hazard) that annotations cannot express.

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?

Two compact blocks: the behavioral core first, then a Returns line. Every sentence carries distinct information (scope, sibling contrast, ordering hazard, return shape) with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return shape inline, and it covers the mutation's effect on control points and the index-shift hazard. For a 2-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the index semantics via the 'indices shift / highest index down' rule but does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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 ONE landscape spline segment by index') with a precise scope qualifier ('ONE') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_landscape_spline_control_point. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening either 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 an explicit positive use case ('the way to cut a road or river without losing the route's points'), names the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be used instead ('destroys the point and all its segments'), and adds an operational ordering rule ('work from the highest index down'). When, when-not, and alternative are all present.

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