Remove wheel favorite

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is already known, and 'Remove' is consistent with that. However, the description adds almost nothing beyond the annotation: it doesn't say whether removal is immediate/permanent, what happens if the name isn't present, or whether a re-add is needed to undo.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly what leaves the usage and behavioral gaps.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation this is close to sufficient, but it omits the failure mode (name not in favorites) and any cross-reference to the favorites listing/adding tools that would let an agent sequence calls correctly.

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 100%, so both 'kind' (with enum dance/moveset) and 'name' are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'a name' but adds no format, casing, or enum context beyond what the schema already provides, making this a baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a name from the radial-wheel favorites'), so the action is unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling reanim_add_favorite via 'remove', but never names the sibling or the list_favorites counterpart explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the name should already exist in the favorites list), and no pointer to reanim_list_favorites for verifying entries. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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