remove_montage_slot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a failed save yields success=false with saved=false and save_error, exposing failure semantics. It does not, however, explain idempotency/repeat-run behavior despite idempotentHint=false.

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, then the save-failure clause, then the return shape. Two tight sentences plus a return signature; every part carries information. Slightly dense in the return list but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the full return object including slot_count, already_existed, removed, saved and save_error. Combined with the failure semantics, an agent knows the effect and result shape. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to add_montage_slot/get_montage_info.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including the name-vs-index mutual requirement. The description restates 'by name or index' and lists slot_name/slot_index only in the return shape, adding no new syntax or format detail. 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: 'Remove a slot animation track from a UAnimMontage by name or index.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_montage_slot, remove_montage_section, and remove_montage_notify because it names the exact sub-resource (slot animation track). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the resource is precise enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The only routing hint ('Use get_montage_info first to list slots') lives in the schema's slot_index description, not here. An agent learns what the tool does but not when to prefer it over sibling remove/add montage tools.

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