remove_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotation

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 genuine value beyond that: the exact idempotency contract (out-of-range index returns already_absent without error) and the full return object, which is essential since there is no output schema.

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 operation, then the index semantics and idempotency note, then the return shape. The 'mirror of add..., inverted' clause is slightly redundant but earns its place by routing the agent to the sibling. No padding otherwise.

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 three-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the idempotency guarantee, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the change is persisted to disk (only hinted at by the 'saved' return field) and slot_index being optional yet treated as required.

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%, and the schema description already states that entrance_index is 0-based and counts entrances only, not all definition data. The description largely restates this, adding little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) plus resource (entrance annotation) and scope (from a slot of a USmartObjectDefinition). It also explicitly names the sibling it inverts (add_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotation), so an agent can distinguish it from the add tool without opening either 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?

Names its counterpart (add_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotation) and states the idempotent out-of-range behavior, giving the agent clear operational context. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or prerequisites such as definition-load state, so it falls short of explicit alternatives guidance.

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