shaderfx-remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the removal action. It does not explain whether removal is permanent, what happens if the named effect does not exist, or whether the target object must be specified in a particular format.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices important usage and behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a very short description, the tool lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation. The description does not explain how the object parameter is used or what the operational consequences of removal are, leaving a destructive action under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds little beyond the schema titles. The word 'named' aligns with the 'name' parameter, but the role of the 'object' parameter and any constraints on its value are left entirely to the schema title.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('a named shader effect'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like shaderfx-add, shaderfx-list, and shaderfx-set. It could additionally clarify that removal targets a specific object, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shaderfx-add, shaderfx-set, or other remove tools. Prerequisites like the existence of the effect or how to target an object are not mentioned.

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