remove_smart_object_definition_default_behavior

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 adds real value beyond that: it names the exact returned fields (removed, already_absent, saved) and specifies that an out-of-range index returns already_absent rather than erroring, which is a genuinely useful behavioral nuance.

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-loads the action and scope, then the idempotency caveat and return shape. The reflection internals (FArrayProperty/FScriptArrayHelper) don't help an agent select or invoke the tool, but they consume little space. Overall tight and readable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, and annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. For a two-parameter mutation tool this is nearly complete; only explicit usage routing to siblings 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 both parameters are already documented, and the description repeats 'by index' without adding format/syntax guidance. The only added semantic is the out-of-range index behavior, which does clarify the accepted range indirectly. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 (remove) + resource (definition-level default behavior) + addressing mode (by index) scoped to USmartObjectDefinition. The 'definition-level' qualifier usefully separates it from the slot-level sibling remove_smart_object_slot_behavior_definition, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternatives are given; routing must be inferred from the 'definition-level' scope and the idempotency note, which implies safe repeated calls. Adequate but leaves the agent to reason about when this is preferable to the slot-level removal tool.

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