Remove material

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the SURF-001 knowledge-search pointer; it does not say what happens to surfaces or other objects referencing the material, whether removal can fail, or whether it is reversible.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the verb and resource, with the rule reference appended. Minimal waste, though the bracketed rule syntax is terse enough to be ambiguous to an agent unfamiliar with the convention.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, annotations cover the mutation risk, but the description omits referencing behavior (e.g. materials in use by surfaces) and only gestures at a pre-check rule. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Material ID to remove'), which matches the description's 'by ID'. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 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 (Remove) and resource (material) plus the selection key (by ID), which distinguishes it from add_material and update_material. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling removal tools or clarify scope (e.g. whether dependencies are affected).

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 only usage signal is the appended rule tag pointing at SURF-001 and bulc_knowledge_search, which implies a prerequisite check before deletion. That is helpful but cryptic — no condition is stated for when to delete vs. update a material, and no exclusions are given.

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