remove_motion_warping_component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by spelling out the no-op semantics ('an actor that has no such component returns already_existed:false + removed:false + note, not an error') and the exact return shape, which is genuinely useful beyond the structured fields.

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?

Action is front-loaded in the first clause, the mirror relationship and idempotency note follow, and the return shape is a compact trailing line. No filler, though the return-object repetition is slightly verbose given it's a mutation with a predictable result.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the no-op edge case, and the return fields, so an agent knows both what happens and what it gets back. Minor gap: it doesn't describe side effects on existing motion warping targets.

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?

Only one parameter (actor_path) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries full meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Detach) and resource (UMotionWarpingComponent from an actor), and explicitly names the sibling it mirrors (add_motion_warping_component). An agent can distinguish this from the many remove_* animation 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?

The 'mirror of add_motion_warping_component' reference implies the inverse use case, but it never states conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the name and mirror note, but not spelled out.

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