remove_trigger_box

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that the actor's class is verified before deletion, that the level is not saved (so the effect is not persisted to disk), and that a missing or wrong-class actor is explicitly not an error. These are exactly the non-obvious destructive-operation facts an agent needs.

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 mostly tight, but the return fields are listed twice ('Returns actor_name, actor_class, deleted and already_existed' followed by the same list in object form), which is pure repetition in a four-sentence description.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the response and does so, including the optional note field and the non-error case. It is missing only transaction/undo semantics for the deletion, which is a minor gap for a destructive editor-world operation.

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 the schema already explains actor_name is the object name, that editor labels are not matched, and that the command fails without it. The description adds only the class-check context, so 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 ('Delete a TriggerBox actor from the editor world') plus the class-check qualifier, which is enough to separate it from the trigger-sphere/volume removal tools in the sibling list. An agent could pick this tool without opening the 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?

Usage context is implied (editor-world cleanup of a TriggerBox) but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling removal tools (remove_trigger_sphere, remove_volume) or any prerequisites/conditions. The note about missing actors being a non-error is useful, but that is behavioral rather than a when-to-use rule.

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