remove_subtitle_cue

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 real behavioral context beyond that: the exact out-of-range behavior (returns removed:false + note, not an error) and a mutation scope limited to one cue. It stops short of discussing auth or rate limits, but for this narrow operation that is minor.

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 core action, then the sibling routing, then the idempotency behavior, then the return shape. Three dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries 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, but the description supplies the full return shape ({ asset_path, cue_index, removed, previous_count, new_count }), plus mutation scope, sibling routing, and edge-case behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so cue_index ('0-based index into Subtitles[]') and asset_path ('/Game path to the USubtitleAssetUserData') are already fully documented. The description echoes 'by index' but adds no syntax or format detail 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 (remove) and a precise resource (a single FSubtitleAssetData cue by index), then explicitly distinguishes itself from both add_subtitle_cue (its inverse) and remove_subtitles_asset (whole-asset deletion). An agent can route correctly without opening a 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 the alternatives and the condition that selects them: use remove_subtitles_asset to destroy the whole asset instead. This is explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance plus the inverse relationship, leaving nothing to inference.

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