removeModifier

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: same-styling 'pill' rows are deleted together, and removedIds must be read to learn the full set removed — important for a destructive operation. It omits any note on permissions, checkpointing, or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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-loads the action and the id/kind resolution, then layers consequences and alternatives. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical kind enumeration and the two-alternative tail make it longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent to inspect removedIds for the complete deletion set, and it covers the grouped-deletion behavior, the neutralising pitfall, and sibling routing. Enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema (including the OpenScreen editor caveat) while id is not. The description compensates partly by explaining that id is an opaque handle from which the kind is resolved, but it never says where to obtain a valid id.

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 precise verb (Delete) plus the resource (modifier) and enumerates the five modifier kinds it covers, noting the kind is derived from the id. It is clearly separable from siblings like removeTrim and removeClip.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use removeTrim for a trim, removeClip for a clip, and states the anti-pattern to avoid (neutralising with span 0 / 1× speed). This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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