modifiers-remove

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

The only behavioral detail is 'without applying it', which clarifies that the modifier is not applied to the object. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like permanent deletion, effects on the dependency graph, or whether undo is available. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 removal operation, the description covers the core action and the key distinction (not applying). It does not mention return values or error handling, but these are likely covered by the tool's nature. The object parameter default is specified in the schema, rounding out the context.

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?

The input schema provides clear titles for both parameters ('Name of the modifier to remove' and 'Object owning the modifier (defaults to active)'), giving full coverage. The description adds the 'stack' context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (remove), the resource (modifier), and specifies the context (from the stack) while distinguishing it from applying. This is precise 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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus other modifier operations (e.g., modifiers-add, modifiers-set). It mentions 'without applying' but does not elaborate on scenarios where removal is preferable or any prerequisites.

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