remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a destructive mutation but says nothing about whether removing an effect shifts later slots, what occurs if the slot is already empty, whether the change is persisted or requires save_project, or whether it is reversible via undo.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, putting the action and its two scoping constraints first. It is efficient, though the parenthetical asides slightly interrupt the flow.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no per-parameter documentation, the description should cover failure modes and side effects. As written it leaves an agent guessing about error behavior and slot renumbering.

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 both params are bare integers, but the description compensates usefully by giving the slot domain (0..9) and clarifying that track is an id rather than an index or name. It adds real meaning yet leaves edge cases such as out-of-range slots unexplained.

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 resource (effect), scoped by slot and track, which lets an agent distinguish it from add_effect and set_effect without opening their schemas. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is a clear but not fully differentiating statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for deleting an existing effect versus adding or configuring one via the sibling names. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites, and no note about what to do instead if the target slot is empty.

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