ue_foliage_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that without 'center' and 'radius' it removes all instances, which is key destructive behavior. However, it does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects on the level, error handling, or whether confirmation is needed. The description is honest but minimal.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then explains the conditional behavior, making efficient use of words while remaining clear.

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?

The description covers the two main use cases (remove all, remove within sphere) but omits edge cases like specifying only one of center/radius. It also does not mention return values, coordinate space, or any prerequisites. For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'center' and 'radius' define a sphere and that omitting both removes all instances, which adds meaning to the schema. However, it does not clarify the data format for 'center' (e.g., vector, coordinates), units for 'radius', or the behavior when only one of the two is provided. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Toglie istanze di foliage' (removes foliage instances), identifying the specific resource (foliage instances) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_foliage_add_instances and ue_foliage_list. It also clarifies the two modes: all instances or only those within a sphere, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other foliage tools. It lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions, and the conditional behavior based on parameters is more about parameter semantics than usage context. There is no mention of scenarios where an alternative should be preferred.

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