remove_mass_trait

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (including 'saved'), which hints that the config is persisted to disk, but it does not explain what happens to dependent traits or indices when one is removed.

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 lines with the purpose front-loaded and the return contract on a second line. No wasted words, though the return-value list is somewhat dense raw output rather than prose.

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 description usefully enumerates return fields, and the annotations cover the destruction/persistence semantics. The only gap is guidance on choosing between trait_class and trait_index beyond the schema's mutual-exclusivity note, which is minor for a single-target removal tool.

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%, including the mutual exclusivity of trait_class and trait_index, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching details beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Remove a trait from a Mass entity config') and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of add_mass_trait. This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling remove_mass_trait_from_entity, which operates on entities rather than configs.

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?

The 'inverse of add_mass_trait' framing implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the entity-level sibling that a confused agent might pick instead. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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