hydra_drop

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description explains a subtle Hydra behavior—outputs keep showing their last frame—and why blanking is necessary. It also discloses that the code is gone afterwards and describes the returned blanked and restored semantics. This is substantial behavioral context the structured annotations alone would not convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the core action, explains the persistence rationale, defines the return values, and warns about destructiveness. The structure front-loads the main purpose and uses a dash to add essential context without padding.

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 destructive, non-read-only tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers why blanking happens, what restored means, the take flag requirement, and the irreversible code loss. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and handle side effects.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description takes on the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines take: 'Human-written blocks need take=true.' The name parameter is not explicitly described but is self-evident from context as the block to remove, so the gap is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one block from the composition,' then clarifies the consequential behavior of blanking outputs. This cleanly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like hydra_save or hydra_hush by stating exactly what gets removed and what happens to the screen.

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 clear operational guidance: human-written blocks need take=true, and hydra_save should be called first if the code might be needed again. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the save-first warning and the destruction warning provide enough contextual guardrails for an agent to decide safely.

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