remove_struct_member

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 still adds genuine non-obvious behavior: that a missing member returns already_absent without error, and that removal of the last member is refused as an explicit error. That is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

The behavior sentence is front-loaded and the two edge cases are stated economically. The trailing return-shape block is longer than a prose sentence, but it is the only place the return contract is documented since no output schema exists, so it earns its space.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive/idempotent semantics, both failure modes, and the return shape. Only the lacking when-to-use framing against sibling tools keeps it short of complete.

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 both parameters are documented there (member_name with its display-name/internal-var-name note, struct_path with the UUserDefinedStruct type). The description adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 member from a user-defined struct') and scopes it to structs specifically, which distinguishes it cleanly from the many enum/rig/blueprint removal siblings in the list.

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 by naming the target resource, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as rename_struct_member, get_struct_members, or the enum equivalents. An agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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