cocos_remove_post_build_patches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the removal logic (precedence rules, AND filtering, no-op behavior) and references another tool for explicit wipes. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to other patches after removal, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose and two methods, while subsequent sentences explain precedence rules and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage rules, and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, removed patch details) or error handling, leaving some contextual gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description must compensate, which it does excellently. It explains the semantic relationship between parameters: indices take precedence, otherwise platform+file filters combine with AND logic, and all None results in a no-op. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, fully addressing the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('patches'), specifying two distinct methods (by index list OR by platform/file filter). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cocos_register_post_build_patch' and 'cocos_list_post_build_patches' by focusing on removal operations rather than registration or listing.

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 provides explicit usage rules: indices take precedence over filters, calling with all None is a no-op, and an explicit wipe requires a different tool ('cocos_register_post_build_patch' with specific parameters). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including named alternatives.

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