Sb3 Remove Sound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a destructive action ('Remove') but doesn't mention side effects, requirements (e.g., target must exist), or whether the change is reversible. The '(proxied)' hint is unexplained and provides no actionable behavioral information.

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 extremely brief (one sentence plus a parenthetical), so it is concise. However, it omits essential details, and the '(proxied)' suffix is unclear and detracts from the message. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a non-trivial operation within a project-editing system, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot correctly invoke it without knowing what target and name refer to, how they relate to a sound, or what the expected outcome is.

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 the description provides no explanation of the 'target' and 'name' parameters. The schema only lists them as required strings with no descriptions, so an agent has no idea what values to provide or how they relate to the sound removal.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Remove a sound.' This distinguishes it from siblings like sb3_add_sound or sb3_remove_costume, though it doesn't clarify what a 'sound' is in the context of the project or that it operates on a target. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is ambiguous and doesn't add to purpose clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_remove_costume or sb3_remove_sprite. There are no prerequisites, context about project state, or exclusions. An agent would have to 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.