blueprint_component_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly mentions 'Compiles and saves' and the re-parenting of children, which are important behavioral traits beyond a simple 'remove'. It lacks details on irreversibility or prerequisites, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and beyond what the schema suggests.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds critical behavioral context (re-parenting and compile/save) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core operation, side effects (re-parenting, compile/save), and clarifies the target type. It doesn't mention error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist or be loaded), or return values, but given the simplicity of the tool and the rich schema, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require more on edge cases or explicit undo guidance.

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 100%: both blueprint_path and component_name have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 component (SCS node) from a Blueprint', specifying the resource (Blueprint) and the target (component/SCS node). It distinguishes from sibling tools like blueprint_node_delete (graph nodes) by clarifying it applies to SCS nodes, and re-parenting behavior adds specificity.

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool targets components (SCS nodes) and notes the re-parenting behavior, which helps the agent know when to use it versus blueprint_node_delete or blueprint_component_rename. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for non-component removals, so it stops short of a 5.

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