remove_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('remove') but does not specify side effects: whether the material itself is deleted or just unassigned, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the slot index is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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 removal tool, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values (though an output schema exists, it is not shown), error handling, preconditions (e.g., object exists, slot exists), or consequences. Combined with the lack of annotations, an agent has insufficient context to call this tool reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by slot index' but does not clarify the meaning of the slot parameter beyond its name, nor does it explain the object parameter's format. The schema already defines types and defaults, but the description adds no meaningful semantic information.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a material slot from an object'), and the method ('by slot index'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_material (which deletes a whole material) and assign_material (which assigns), making the operation unambiguous.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with delete_material (which removes the material entirely) or explain when removing a slot is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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