remove_smart_object_slot_behavior_definition

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 defining what idempotency actually means here ('a behavior_index past the end returns already_absent without error') and exposes a `saved` return flag implying persistent write-back, which the annotations do not convey. It omits whether removing an entry reindexes subsequent behaviors, a notable gap for an index-based mutation.

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?

Two short blocks: the operation and the edge case first, then the return shape. Front-loaded and free of filler. Listing the full return object is slightly verbose but justified since no output schema exists.

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 usefully documents the return shape, and it covers the idempotent boundary case for a destructive index-based mutation. What is missing is the effect on neighboring behavior indices after removal (shifting) and any auth/asset-lock requirements.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrasing 'by its index in the slot's BehaviorDefinitions array' largely restates the schema text for behavior_index and adds no format or range detail.

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 (behavior definition), and precise location (a slot of a USmartObjectDefinition, by index in the slot's BehaviorDefinitions array). An agent can distinguish this from add_smart_object_slot_behavior_definition and remove_smart_object_slot 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 description explains the idempotent edge case (past-the-end index returns already_absent) but never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling remove_smart_object_slot or the add counterpart, nor any prerequisite such as the behavior having been added first. Usage is implied by the name rather than spelled out.

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