remove_montage_notify

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the out-of-range no-op (index past the end changes nothing yet still succeeds with removed=false) and the partial-failure path (failed save => success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the nuance the destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=false flags cannot convey, and it does not contradict them.

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-loaded with the action and its edge case in the first sentence, followed by outcome and return details. Slightly redundant in that the prose enumerates return fields that the trailing Returns block repeats, but since no output schema exists this restatement is largely functional rather than padding.

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 supplies the return shape, the no-op semantics, and the failure mode, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this mutation correctly. Nothing material about the tool's behavior 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 real meaning to notify_index by defining its range behavior and the consequence of exceeding the array bounds, which the schema does not state. montage_path receives no extra semantics beyond the schema example.

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+resource+scope: removing the notify event at a zero-based index from the Notifies array of a UAnimMontage, plus the implicit save. This distinguishes it from the many nearby siblings such as add_montage_notify, remove_anim_notify, and remove_notify_track by naming both the asset type and the targeted array.

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?

Usage is implied through the resource scope (montage Notifies array), and the schema hint to call get_montage_info first is echoed by the index semantics. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over remove_anim_notify or remove_notify_track, nor what preconditions (loaded asset, editor state) must hold, so the agent is left to infer the routing.

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