remove_smart_object_slot

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, non-idempotent) by disclosing that behaviors/tags/annotations are removed with the slot, that later slots shift down one index, that a failed save errors but keeps the removal in memory, that an invalid index errors, and that the whole thing is one undoable editor transaction.

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 core action, then side effects, error/failure semantics, undo scope, sibling alternatives, and the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the side effects on indices, failure handling, undoability, and alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that slot_index is unstable because subsequent slots shift down after removal, and that an invalid slot_index is an error.

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) and resource (the slot at slot_index from a USmartObjectDefinition asset), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_smart_object_slot_enabled and add_smart_object_slot as the alternatives for different intents.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not routing: 'To turn a slot off while keeping indices stable use set_smart_object_slot_enabled; add_smart_object_slot appends one.' It also tells the caller to re-read indices with get_smart_object_slots_detail after the shift, covering the post-call workflow.

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