remove_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action ('remove expression') but does not reveal what happens if the property has no expression, whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 very short at 4 words, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded and to the point, but fails to include critical information about parameters, usage context, or behavioral details. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence is too terse to be fully useful.

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 has 5 parameters (including identifiers like compId and compName) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to identify the target property, what constitutes a valid property, or the return value or confirmation of success. The description leaves major gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about any parameter, leaving the agent to infer the roles of 'compId', 'compName', 'property', 'layerName', and 'layerIndex' from their names alone. This is severely inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 'Remove expression from a property' uses a specific verb and resource, indicating it removes an expression from a property. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'set_expression' or 'enable_expression', and fails to clarify what 'property' refers to or what happens when no expression exists. This vagueness limits its usefulness for an AI agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_expression' (to modify) or 'enable_expression' (to toggle). The description implies it should be used to clear an expression, but provides no context on prerequisites, such as whether an expression must already exist, or how it differs from modifying or disabling an expression. This lack of explicit guidance reduces clarity for selecting the correct tool.

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