draw_remove_one

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect (STATE_MUTATING, deletes the targeted shape) and the requirement to obtain the entity ID from draw_list, but does not mention reversibility, error behavior, or permissions.

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 purpose in the first sentence, then uses labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) for scannability. Every sentence is purposeful and no information is wasted.

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 single-parameter removal tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, side effects, and prerequisite. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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 100%, so the entity_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats that the remove operation uses an entity ID and that it comes from draw_list, adding no new format or syntax semantics beyond the structured field.

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 (delete) and resource (drawing shape), and specifies the target identifier (entity ID) needed. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like draw_clear, which would remove drawings in bulk.

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 says when to use it (removing an invalid or obsolete level while preserving other drawings) and gives a prerequisite (entity ID from draw_list). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the preserving constraint implies a contrast with draw_clear.

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