remove_tree_parameter

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the idempotent no-op behavior returns removed:false, and the return payload includes parameter_count and saved. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the important idempotency caveat and return shape. Every part earns its place.

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?

With only two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the missing return-shape information and clarifies the no-op behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces tree_path and parameter_name in the return shape but adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remove a named parameter from a UStateTree's root parameter bag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as add_tree_parameter, set_tree_parameter, and list_tree_parameters without needing to open their schemas.

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 is implied by the verb and by the idempotency note, which helps the agent understand that calling it on an absent parameter is safe. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer add_tree_parameter, set_tree_parameter, or list_tree_parameters instead.

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