Project Remove Asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and clearly discloses that the assets/ file is left in place. This directly addresses the main destructive concern for a removal tool. It does not cover persistence or failure modes, but the key side effect is transparent.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action first and the important caveat second. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

Together with the fully described input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for invocation. It conveys what is removed, what is preserved, and which sprite/kind is affected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents kind, name, sprite, and path. The description adds no new parameter-level guidance beyond restating the allowed kinds.

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?

Describes a specific operation with a clear verb and resource: removing a costume or sound declaration from a sprite. The second sentence distinguishes it from asset-deleting tools by noting the file stays in assets/, which is an important scoping detail.

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 gives clear context: this tool removes a declaration while preserving the underlying file, which is exactly the decision point an agent needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like sb3_remove_costume or sb3_remove_sound, but the context is enough to infer when to use it.

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