remove_height_range

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive scope (one band vs. all bands via z_from=-1), which is genuinely beyond the schema. It stops short of mutation essentials: whether the object must already have a band at that height, whether the operation is reversible, and what happens to painted/modifier data in the removed range.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional clause. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the sentinel case but leaves the object identifier format and failure behavior undefined. It is adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain z_from fully (millimeters, -1 means all bands). The required 'object' parameter is left unexplained — no indication whether it is a name, index, or ID, which is the biggest semantic 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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a height band from an object) with units and the sentinel case spelled out. It is distinguishable from siblings by name and effect, though it never names the complementary set_height_range tool that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to strip a height band versus calling set_height_range, remove_part, or delete_object, nor any prerequisite (does the object need an existing band?). The only conditional statement is about the z_from value, which is parameter semantics rather than tool selection guidance.

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