RemoveTransportObject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does deliver a non-obvious behavioral trait: in batch mode the call records under the next number, returns empty content, and the answer must be read by number afterward. It omits other relevant behavior — whether the removal is reversible, permission/lock requirements, and what happens on an invalid position.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a clearly separated batch-mode note. Dense but each sentence contributes; 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 destructive, six-parameter, output-schema-less tool the description covers the action and the asynchronous batch read path (referencing the numbered-answer pattern), which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. Error and preconditions are the remaining gap, but the essential call semantics are present.

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 100% and already documents every parameter including the detail enum and pgmid default, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that object_name/object_type/transport_number/position identify the entry, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (Removes), a specific resource (the entry of an object), and the three identifiers that scope it (object name/type, transport task, position). It is unambiguous against siblings like AddTransportObject or MoveTransportObjects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies when the tool applies but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. task must be modifiable/unreleased), and no pointer to ReadTransportObjects or MoveTransportObjects as the way to inspect or relocate entries instead.

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