remove_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that path-based removal only removes the first match and can be risky with duplicate paths, which is a critical behavioral nuance. It could mention whether removal is permanent or affects attached elements, but the key risk is well-covered.

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 tightly structured: one purpose sentence followed by three concise constraint bullets. No filler; every sentence provides actionable guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers main usage scenarios and the edge case of duplicate paths. However, it does not specify whether id and path are mutually exclusive or what happens to attached elements when a frame is removed, leaving a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context—preferring id, calling list_routes for exact viewport—which goes beyond the schema and justifies a 4.

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 clear verb+resource statement ('Remove a route frame from the Design Canvas'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_routes and add_route. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 CONSTRAINTS section explicitly instructs the agent to prefer removal by ID, warns against path removal due to duplicate risk, and directs the agent to call list_routes first for specific viewport removal. This provides clear when/how guidance and names an alternative tool.

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