ass_karaoke_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains exactly what is destroyed (the karaoke tags, optionally the | markers), the default retention of markers and the reason, and the precise retightening/truncation side effect on the line's End when keep_times=False. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows with the two behavioral flags and return shape. The prose is dense but each sentence carries information; only the return-shape dump is somewhat verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the full return structure, and with no annotations it fully documents the mutation's side effects. The only real gap is the unexplained required 'selection' parameter.

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% across 4 params. The description compensates well for drop_markers and keep_times, including the default behavior of each, but leaves the required 'selection' parameter and 'doc_id' entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (\k/\kf/\ko/\kt karaoke tags), plus the underlying operation name. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like ass_strip_tags and ass_remove_tag, which do not target karaoke timing tags specifically.

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 gives implicit guidance: markers are kept by default because ass_karaoke_generate re-splits on them, which hints at the workflow. However it never states explicitly when to prefer this over ass_strip_tags/ass_remove_tag, nor any prerequisites about the selection or doc_id.

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