remove_state

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 the concrete idempotent behavior — the removed:false-with-note outcome — plus the documented return shape, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded followed by the idempotency caveat and the return shape. Little waste, though the return-field list is somewhat verbose for a tool with only three inputs.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and the non-existent-state behavior, which is what an agent most needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any guidance about side effects on descendants beyond what the schema already states.

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%, so the schema already explains tree_path, state_name, and with_descendants (including its default-true recursive behavior). The description adds no syntax or format detail for parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Remove a state from the tree by name.' It is unambiguous about what is affected. It does not explicitly contrast with look-alike siblings such as remove_anim_state or remove_state_tree_global_task, but the scope ('state from the tree') is sufficiently specific.

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 idempotency note ('removing a non-existent state returns removed:false with a note') tells the agent this is safe to call blindly, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., how it differs from removing the whole tree or global tasks).

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