imgui_remove_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive nature ('Remove') and cascading effect ('all its widgets'), but doesn't note irreversibility, whether undo can recover it, whether hidden windows can still be removed, or effects on focus/state. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the cascade detail is meaningful information rather than padding.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description provides only the minimal 'removes window + widgets' information. It lacks details about irreversibility, recovery options via undo/redo, or relationship to set_window_visibility. Given zero annotation coverage and simple schema, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Window identifier to remove'. The description adds that removal cascades to widgets, giving context about what the id refers to. With one well-documented parameter at full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is met and the description's cascade detail elevates it slightly.

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 window and all its widgets' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (window), and adds the scope detail that all widgets are removed with it. This distinguishes it somewhat from sibling tools like imgui_remove_widget (which removes only a widget) and imgui_clear_all, though it doesn't explicitly call out the sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that removing a window also destroys its widgets as a caveat implying alternatives, nor does it contrast with imgui_set_window_visibility (hide) or imgui_undo/redo recovery options. Context must be inferred from the name and one-liner.

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