remove_mass_config_trait

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 mentions that only one trait is removed without affecting others, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior when the trait does not exist, what happens if both identifiers are provided (though implied not to), or any permission requirements or error states.

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 highly concise: two sentences upfront stating the purpose and key constraint, followed by a brief args list in a standard format. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 3 parameters with no output schema described, but the context indicates an output schema exists. The description does not mention return values or behavior on failure (e.g., trait not found). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is a minor gap but the description could still be more complete.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that trait_index and trait_class are alternative identifiers and providing an example for trait_class. This is especially valuable given the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description covers all three parameters adequately.

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 single trait') and the target resource ('Mass Entity Config'). It specifies that it does not affect other traits, adding precision. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'add_mass_config_trait' implicitly, it does not explicitly contrast with 'set_mass_config_trait_property' or 'get_mass_config_traits'.

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 usage guidelines on how to identify the trait ('by EITHER trait_index OR trait_class (not both required)') and includes an example for trait_class. It does not, however, give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or handle cases where both identifiers are provided.

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