modifiers.remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what happens to the modifier's effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral impact.

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 with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness; a slightly longer description could include parameter hints or usage context without losing conciseness.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks details about when to use, parameter roles, and behavioral outcomes, leaving gaps that an agent must infer.

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 has zero description coverage, and the main description does not explain either parameter (name, object). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types, which is a failure to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a modifier') and the resource ('from the stack'), plus adds the nuance 'without applying it', which distinguishes it from siblings like modifiers.apply. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modifiers.apply or modifiers.set_visibility. The description implies removal without application, but does not mention when removal is appropriate or what the alternative tools offer.

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