remove_soundfield_effect

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: undoability, that the effect object survives in the package, that an out-of-range index errors, that success is contingent on the submix reaching disk, and the degraded path when no concrete effect class is loaded (chain untouched, removed=false, note). This is unusually rich mutation context.

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 and readable, but the return contract is stated twice: once in prose ('Returns removed_effect_class, removed_effect_path and chain_length') and again as a full 'Returns: {...}' block with overlapping fields. That duplication costs space without adding information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so completely for both the success and failure shapes, including the optional save_error and the note fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 baseline is 3. The description corroborates effect_index as a zero-based position with an out-of-range error condition, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema does not already carry.

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+resource: 'Detach the effect at effect_index from a USoundfieldSubmix effect chain (undoable) and save'. An agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from obvious relatives such as add_soundfield_effect_to_submix or set_soundfield_effect_settings.

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?

Usage context is implied through the success/failure conditions ('an out-of-range index is an error', 'removal succeeds only when the submix reaches disk'), which tells the agent when the call fails but not when to prefer this tool. No alternative tool is named and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a loaded effect class) are framed as guidance rather than as behavior.

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