bg3_remove_mod_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait (base layers are immutable), but omits what removal actually does to dependent layers/mods, whether the action is reversible, and any permission or side-effect context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the constraint in a parenthetical. No filler; the only critique is that brevity here borders on under-specification, which is scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool's complexity is low (one param). Still, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves gaps an agent would need for confident 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?

The single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what form the name takes (layer name vs identifier) or any constraints on it, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 (unregister) and resource (mod layer), making the inverse relationship with the sibling bg3_add_mod_layer obvious. The parenthetical clarifies scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it complements.

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 constraint 'base cannot be removed' functions as a partial when-not rule, informing the agent of one illegal case. However, it never states prerequisites (the layer must already be registered) or points to the natural alternative bg3_add_mod_layer.

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