remove_compositor_effect

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that removal reconnects the surrounding chain (a non-obvious side effect) and summarizes the return shape, but says nothing about reversibility, undo behavior, or what happens if node_name doesn't exist.

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 action and its side effect, then a compact Args/Returns block. Only minor waste: the Returns line partly duplicates an existing output schema.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the chain-reconnection behavior, the provenance of the argument, and the response shape. Nothing essential to a correct call 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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says 'Node Name' with no meaning. The description compensates by explaining that the value must be a node name obtained from add_compositor_effect or list_compositor, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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 (remove a compositor effect) and adds a scope detail: the chain is reconnected around the removed node. It is clearly distinct from add_compositor_effect and set_compositor_effect, though the differentiation is implied via the arg note rather than stated.

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 arg note ('from add_compositor_effect or list_compositor') implies the workflow: list or create first, then remove. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus set_compositor_effect (modify in place) or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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