body_remove

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses reversibility per mode, the direct-design override with mode_used='delete', and the partial-failure caveat that a later failure cannot restore earlier deleted bodies. It also documents error behavior (non-body ref -> INVALID_PARAMS, nothing removed) and the return shape, which is more than most mutation tools provide.

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 text is front-loaded with the core action and then layered as mode semantics, errors, returns, and an example, with no filler sentences. The trailing example ('body_remove(bodies=[<tool body>])') is largely redundant given the required-parameter schema and is the only part that does not earn its space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned keys (removed, features, mode_used). Combined with the mode semantics and the documented error case, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation safely without further probing.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema alone does not: it explains what happens downstream in the timeline for each mode and the special direct-design case where mode is ignored. The bodies parameter is explained mainly by reference to inspect_query, which is adequate given the schema's own item-level ref documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Remove bodies from the design') and immediately splits the operation into two well-defined modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating itself from nearby siblings such as body_delete_faces, body_split, or assembly_delete, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance for the key decision: mode=remove keeps a timeline feature that can be suppressed/deleted to restore bodies, mode=delete removes them, and direct designs always delete regardless of mode. What's missing is any statement of when to reach for this tool instead of the adjacent body-editing or assembly-deletion tools.

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