remove_part

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 usefully discloses the key mutation constraint that the last solid part cannot be removed. It still omits permissions, reversibility, error behavior if the part is missing, and the effect on the object, leaving substantial gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the constraint following. Every sentence carries relevant information and there is no filler.

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 narrow two-parameter mutation, the description gives the essential action and the one hard constraint. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage it should also cover safety/reversibility and parameter identifier conventions; it is adequate but incomplete.

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; 'by part name' clarifies that the part parameter is a name and 'from an object' identifies the target. It does not explain how the object is identified (name vs. id) or the part-name format, so the clarification is only partial.

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 ('a part') plus the target ('from an object') and gives an example ('e.g. a modifier'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_object and add_modifier without needing to open either schema.

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?

Implies the use case (removing a modifier or other part) and states one hard when-not condition ('The last solid part cannot be removed'). However, it never names alternatives or gives broader when-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer routing from the sibling list.

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