silhouette_remove_shape

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds only the id provenance and says nothing about reversibility, whether removal shifts other shapes, or error behavior on an unknown id — useful but modest added context for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation stated first and the id provenance tucked into a parenthetical. No wasted wording and nothing buried.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description omits what 'design' accepts, what happens on a bad shape_id, and whether the orphaned shape leaves gaps or reindexes. It covers only half of what an agent needs before invoking a delete-style call.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description does real work for shape_id by naming its source tool. However, the equally required 'design' parameter is left completely unexplained (id vs. name, where it comes from), leaving half the parameters undocumented everywhere.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Remove one shape'. The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with bulk siblings like silhouette_clear_shapes or silhouette_delete_design, though those alternatives are never named. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It supplies a prerequisite pointer — the shape_id must come from silhouette_describe_design — which implies a describe-then-remove workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus clear_shapes or delete_design, so usage is only implied.

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