remove_child

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful "staged only" context that the change is not immediate, but says nothing about index shifting of remaining children or how staged changes are committed.

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?

Two terse sentences with the operation and its staging constraint front-loaded and zero waste.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so much is covered structurally. However, for a mutation that is "staged only," the description never tells the agent how staged changes take effect, leaving a meaningful workflow gap.

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%, so device, slot, child, and profile are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Remove") and resource ("one action from inside a Multi/Toggle Action"), which is clear and actionable. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling add_child as its inverse, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

"Staged only" implies the change is queued rather than applied, which is light workflow guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., add_child, set_multi_delays) or statement of prerequisites.

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