unassign_rvt_from_landscape

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely beyond them: only one slot is cleared, no dangling entry is left, and the RVT asset itself survives. It also notes the return reports the prior asset path, making the operation reversible on a tool with no output schema.

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-loads the core action and sibling framing in the first sentence, adds the key survival distinction in the second, and gives the return shape compactly. No wasted sentences.

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 compensates by spelling out the return object ({ cleared, slot_index, previous_rvt_asset_path?, landscape }). Combined with the annotation-provided safety profile and full schema coverage, 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the slot concept ('ONE slot') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 ('clears ONE slot of a landscape's RuntimeVirtualTextures array') and immediately frames itself as the 'Inverse of assign_rvt_to_landscape'. Names the distinct sibling (remove_rvt_asset) and what separates it, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening 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?

Explicitly positions the tool against two alternatives: assign_rvt_to_landscape (its inverse) and remove_rvt_asset (which destroys the asset). The when-to-use condition ('unbinds only -- the RVT asset itself survives') is clear, though there are no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statements.

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