imgui_remove_hit_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive/mutating operation, but the description doesn't disclose consequences: what happens if the id doesn't exist, whether removal is reversible, or whether subsequent operations on the removed region fail. The sparse description leaves these important behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action verb. For a simple single-parameter tool, this length is appropriate.

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, single-parameter removal operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is arguably sufficient at a baseline level. However, given that there is no annotation coverage at all, some additional context about failure behavior or the relationship to add/update hit region tools would improve completeness for an agent navigating the large sibling set.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and only 1 parameter ('id' described as 'Hit region id to remove'), so the schema already explains the parameter fully. The description reinforces that the id identifies the region to remove. With only one self-explanatory parameter and full coverage, there is little more the description could add.

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 'Remove a hit region by its id' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (hit region), and identifies the key operand (id). It's clear about what it does, though it doesn't add detail about what a hit region is or how it relates to siblings like imgui_add_hit_region or imgui_update_hit_region, which would strengthen differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling set includes imgui_add_hit_region and imgui_update_hit_region, but the description doesn't distinguish removal from those operations or mention any prerequisites such as the id needing to be valid/existing. Context must be inferred entirely.

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